.1-
^£%-
Sis
1
'; a ■
THE RELATIONSHIP OF
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
MEDICAL SCHOOL AND
AFFILIATED INSTITU-
TIONS TO THE NEIGH-
BORING RESIDENTIAL
COMMUNITY: ITS PROB-
LEMS AND A SOLUTION
Property Of
B0SI08 pEVELOPffi mmi
MARCH 20, 1970
PREPARED BY THE ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD, 52 FRANCIS STREET,
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. ASSISTED BY JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC.
Boston Redevelopment Authority
r~ r
r r~ r~ r
m
-1 n ,~J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
i.
IDENTIFICATION 2 .
PURPOSE OF REPORT 3 .
BACKGROUND *■
DESCRIPTION AND NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD 5 .
DESCRIPTION AND NEEDS OF THE LARGER COMMUNITY 7 .
DESCRIPTION AND NEEDS OF THE INSTITUTIONS 10 .
HISTORY OF THE LOCAL PROBLEM 11 ,
HISTORY OF THE LARGER PROBLEM 15 .
OPTIONS i9.
SOLUTION 22
GENERAL PROPOSITIONS 23 .
PROPOSED SOLUTION TO MAINTENANCE 24 .
PROPOSED SOLUTION TO RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING 26.
PROPOSED SOLUTION TO RENTS 28 .
PROPOSED SOLUTION TO SALVAGE THE LARGER COMMUNITY 31.
HOW THE NEEDS OF THE INSTITUTIONS CAN BE MET 44 .
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL «.
APPENDICES 53
APPENDIX 1 ; MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL 54 .
APPENDIX 2 ; CORRESSPONDENCE WITH HENRY CUTLER 68 .
APPENDIX 3 ; CONVENT SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS 73 .
APPENDIX 4 ; REPORT CONCERNING SCHOOL FACILITIES 77 .
APPENDIX 5 ; REPORT CONCERNING HEALTH FACILITIES 82 .
APPENDIX 6 ; REPORT CONCERNING A TRAFFIC PLAN 84 .
rrr r
r fr n
INTRODUCTION
r
r
■
IDENTIFICATION
The ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD is an association of community residents dedicated
to coordinate community response to the deterioration and destruction of their
neighborhood. It is funded by the Permanent Charities Foundation and by contribu-
tions from community residents. The governing body of the Roxbury Tenants of Har-
vard is the RTH board of directors which is composed of community residents:
Mr. Robert Parks, Chairman
Mrs. Theresa Parks
Mrs. Beatriz Powers
Mr. William Franklin
Mr. Claude C. Miller
Mrs. Mary Stanton
Mr. Robert Setlik
r~
- )
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD have prepared this document to inform interested
parties as to a critical situation in the Northern edge of Roxbury, to define
the problems that have led to that situation, and to propose what we feel is
necessary to eliminate them.
We have attempted to be objective. We have attempted to consider the interests
of the various institutions and to fit them into a scheme whereby we can coexist
and cooperate. However, it must be clear, in the light of our struggle, that total
objectivity is impossible. Somewhere, in all analysis, personal values bias
conclusions. We admit this and we will attempt to define what our values are so
that the reader can judge for himself how this report has been biased. Furthermore,
we hope the reader will clarify his own values so that he himself can judge the
justice of the situation.
r_ r_ r
n
BACKGROUND
T"
DESCRIPTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
The immediate area in which we are concerned is bounded by Francis Street to the
North, Huntington Avenue to the South, Brookline Street to the West and Brigham
circle to the East. (See Figure 1.) It is composed of 128 buildings. There are
approximately 230 families located in the neighborhood, the largest group of which
are families with children. Most of these families have lived in the neighborhood
for a long time; estimated average is ten years. Economically, the neighborhood
can be characterized as being in the low-moderate income group. It is a rare
working multi-ethnic group composed of white, black, and Spanish speaking residents,
NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
It is in our interests to remain in the area because:
1. The housing shortage is such that by moving out of our specific neighborhood,
we, as a group, would be forced to move out of Mission Hill or even Boston
itself.
2. We can't afford private transportation costs to and from work. Thus we need
close proximity to our jobs and to public transportation.
3. We need pedestrian access to schools and other community and commercial
facilities .
4. Our group relationships are in the area. We don't wish to be separated from
family and friends, school, recreational, and church groups.
5. We have put a great investment in time and effort to make a place where our
children can grow up and where we can grow old with safety and independence.
6. We believe it is for the educational advantage of our children to be here in
the inner city because of the diversity of experiences, people, and environments.
c:
r
^
mlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD
KEY:
BOUNDARIES OF NEIGHBORHOOD
EXISTING BUILDINGS
FIGURE 1
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS
a 50 100
®
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
r~
r-
DESCRIPTION OF THE LARGER COMMUNITY
To fully understand the forces with which our neighborhood has to deal, it is
neccessary to illustrate the larger context in which they happen. We consider
ourselves part of the larger community of mission Hill.
While all of the actual hill is composed mainly of residential uses, the area
of the Mission Hill Community is considered only the Northern half of it. This
can be illustrated by the fact that the two school districts, the Martin to the
North and the Jefferson to the South, divide the hill along Parker Hill Avenue
(See Fig. 2. . ) . Thus the school group and recreational group relationships of
the Mission Hill Community focus on the Farragut School in the RTH area, the
parochial schools of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, and the Tobin and Allen schools.
The boundries of the Community can therefore be described as up Parker Street
North along Ward Street, along Huntington Avenue, up francis Street, and to the
neck made by Peabody Street; West to the Jamaicaway-Huntington Avenue interchange;
South to Parker Hill Avenue; and East to the Railroad tracks.
The Land-Use map (Fig. 3.) shows that the center of the community can be con-
sidered Brigham Circle. It is there where the heaviest concentration of commercial
and the major connection to the Transit line is located. The Farragut School
is nearby and Peter Bent Brigham Hospital serves as the emergency health facility.
The remaining community facilities are located along Tremont Street. It is these
services which are the backbone of the school and recreational groups, the com-
mercial and work groups, the church groups, and other groups that make up
"Community".
The population of the area is approximately 13,400 people, composed mainly of
families with children living in owner occupied detached dwellings. It is also
multi-ethnic, but predominately White, moderate income, Irish Catholic, most of
whom have lived in the area for most of their lives.
NEEDS OF THE LARGER COMMUNITY
The needs of the people that inhabit the larger community can be said to be the
same as the neighborhood but with the additional factors:
1. They need enough population to support Commercial and Church Facilities.
2. They need specifically enough families with children to support their schools;
their parochial schools and/or a new community school to replace their
antiquated one.
3. They need specifically enough families with children to maintain the image
of the area as a family oriented community, thus creating the feelings
of stability and security necessary to bring up these children.
4. They need to maintain the emphasis of a pedestrian rather than that of_ the
automobile so that the streete can be safe for children and elderly, so that
the movement of strangers can be watched, and so the level of noise and air
pollution can be kept to a minimum.
'
n
DEFINITION OF THE COMMUNITY
KEY:
BOUNDARY OF JEFFERSON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT >mhmi|
BOUNDARY OF MARTIN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT E53
AREA OF THE MISSION HILL COMMUNITY V/M/////M
BOUNDARY OF OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP PARISH
FIGURE 2
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVAR
!l A
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS,
800
JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANMSj
F*
IIIIIBISI1IBJ1I
EXISTING LAND-USE
KEY:
COMMERCIAL
COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL
NON-COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL V/////A
RESIDENTIAL E&'tt^fl
INDUSTRIAL
ILOjI
VACANT
C
FIGURE 3
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS 0-
9nn
JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
ftrin^i-' ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
0JC
AF
h
r
u
r
L
Jrll
DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTIONS
To the North and South of the Mission Hill Community is an accumulation of med-
ical institutions that have developed to be the medical capital of the world.
Each of the institutions have grown, since the turn of the century, into a
highly specialized organism. Their survival is dependent how they can adapt to
to the changing demands of their progress. Their physical facilities are old
and overcrowded and in some cases structurally unsound. Organization of medical
service has changed beyond the capability of the buildings to respond. This
over-specialization of service has resulted in fragmented care, duplication of
facilities, and incommunication. Competition between hospitals in attracting
research staff, maintaining growth and in salvaging individual corporate identity
has made cooperation and planning difficult. By 1960, in response tc these prob-
lems, an Affiliated Hospital combining six institutions to cooperate with equip-
ment, laboratories, parking, housing, and communication facilities in one complex
was formulated to be built on or near the area occupied by the RTH residents.
These institutions were, in association with the Harvard Medical School:
1. Boston Lying-in Hospital
2. Children's Hospital Medical Center
3. Free Hospital for Wcnen
4. Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary
5. Peter B«*.nt Brigham Hospital
6. Robert B. Brigham Hospital
Since then, because of economic considerations, the scope of their plans have
reduced and several institutions have separated. However, the needs the institut-
ions face are still the same:
NEEDS OF THE INSTITUTIONS
1. They need to build new hospital facilities to respond to the complex equip-
ment and organization of modern medicine.
2. They need to build new research facilities to attract the bright scientists
who would otherwise go elsewhere.
3. They need to build a new power plant before 1973 to service the growing energy
demand of the institutional expansion.
4. They need to provide housing and service facilities to attract doctors and staff,
5. They need to provide thousands of parking spaces for doctors, staff, and
patients.
6. They need a quick and efficient street system to handle the volume of traffic
and to provide for emergency vehicles.
7. They need to remain in close proximity to each other for intercommunication
and sharing of facilities.
8. They need to have land for unknown future expansion.
Thus the acquisition of as much land in the area as possible has been in the
interests of the institutions.
10
r~ : ri
"S r;
i
HISTORY OF THE LOCAL PROBLEM
In 1963, Harvard Medical School began acquiring land in our neighborhood. Prev-
iously, most all the houses were owner occupied dwellings. Rents were low because
old mortgages had low demands and because landlords maintained their own homes.
Maintenance was therefore quick and responsive. Tenant relationships to owners
were based on long standing friendships so friction and incommunication rarely
developed. The neighborhood was to all a tight, healthy place to live.
As Harvard obtained more and more houses, the atmosphere began to change. Man-
agement became a formal matter. Harvard hired a large real estate company, Hun-
neman & Co. Inc., to manage the properties. At that point, to get a window fixed,
a tenant would have to go through long proceedures which often ended with no
response. They would have to fix it themselves or stick cardboard in the window.
Where the original landlord would faithfully paint his house every five years,
we found that Harvard had no interest in maintaining the houses. Porches began
to rot. Roofs began to leak. Still we attempted to get some response but little
was forthcoming.
We realized that the parcels of land would be worthless to Harvard unless they
acquired them all. At first, not many resident owners were willing to leave for
just "an above market price". They also loved the neighborhood because it was
a friendly and safe place for their children to grow up in and thus they wished
to stay. However, now dangerous objects were seen on the streets; exposed nails,
glass, open refrigerators. Boarded-up buildings were a deadly curiosity to chil-
dren. It became clear to these owners that Harvard was not going to maintain
their buildings and the area would become a slum. It was impressed upon them that
they had better sell soon or they would risk the danger of loosing their whole
investment. Understandably, many more sold.
Still and all, most of the community didn't consider that these were tactical
actions on the part of Harvard. After all, Harvard was a highly respected hon-
orable institution. While it was clear that Harvard had little interest to put
money into property they intended to tear down, most people felt it was just a
matter of informing Harvard of the effects of its actions on the lives of people
and the situation would be rectified. Still there was no response.
People still wern't convinced that Harvard was consciously trying to cripple the
neighborhood even when they understood Harvard's rental policies. In a policy
acknowledged by the University, priority in rentals went first to transients;
students, young staff, hippies and then to families. The effective results of
this policy were noise late into the night, students celebrating the end of exams,
motorcycles constantly on the move, strangers on the street. Fear played on the
remaining families. More owners sold. More families became convinced of the
neighborhoods inevitable death.
Let us say that we understand the other factors leading to such a policy decision.
We understand that the more families Harvard rents to, the more families it has
to relocate. However, when the policy was established Harvard had demonstrated
no intention of relocating ANY families. We understand that since Harvard pays
its agent a commission for each apartment he rents, the agent would try to rent
to as many transients as possible so as to increase his commissions. However hu-
man compassion of the effects of this policy should have engendered another form
of imbursement. We understand that transients demand less for maintenance than
11
r
■*?a
—i sad ~*i — *
families, thus the Corporation could profit more from students. However, the needs
of students aren't really less. They just are not in a position to demand what
they need and thus are more easily exploited. It just doesn't seem right to us
that an institution like Harvard should be dealing in that kind of exploitation.
Furthermore, profit from renting to students doesn't justify its effect on des-
troying the neighborhood.
Yet we still trusted Harvard. We trusted them when they told us that we would be
giving up our homes for the public good. They told us the new Affiliated Hos-
pital needed the land to build facilities that would eventually help the larger
community, the city, and possibly people throughout the world. It appeared to us
that we should sacrifice our neighborhood so that this philanthropic insti-
tution could exist. In the winter of 1968, 182 families were notified that they
would have to evict their homes.
It wasn't until after the Harvard Strike of '69, that more information about the
Affiliated Hospital reached us. First, we found out it wasn't to be as extensive
as originally planned. It was to be mainly a research hospital dealing with es-
oteric diseases that could benifit a few and that outpatient services that could
benifit the larger community were being excluded. Second, we found that Harvard
had already owned two parcels of land near the community; a) The Convent of the
Good Shepard site, now used for a parking lot, contains more land than our whole
neighborhood (451,946 sf. as compared to 424,491 sf.), and b) The Ledge Site,
across Brigham Circle, either on which the whole Affiliated Hospital could have
been built. Harvard's explanation of this was that the sites were not "conven-
ient enough." The third bit of information really angered us. In April of 1965,
Bertram Goldberg and Associates, architects for the Affiliated Hospital, produced
their master plan for the area (Fig. 2). This means that previous to 1965, Har-
vard's acquisition of the neighborhood was based purely on speculative need.
More disturbing is that after 1965, the plan demonstrated the only reasons the
neighborhood was to be acquired was for the speculative development of high rise
housing and for Medical School expansion.
The area devoted for Harvard Medical School expansion amounts to more than 1.5
times all the area Harvard now occupies for its medical school. Harvard's own
planning department admitted that they could not justify the need for all that
land. In fact their own long-term plans, based on projected needs needed only
part of the land now occupied by the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital.
Thus the acquisition of our neighborhood by Harvard was purely a speculative land
grab. Let us just say that our faith in Harvard's sincerity at this point had
been seriously jeapordized.
On April 15th, 1969, in the heat of the Strike, Dean Ebert of the Harvard Medical
School announced they were "prepared" to build "low-cost" housing for the families
of our neighborhood. By May 6th, due to public pressure generated by the Strike,
Harvard announced that "No residential will occur until a similar amount of re-
placement housing, at comparable rents and located in nearby areas, is available
for those families to be relocated."
Dean Ebert established a "committee on Community Relations" which was supposed to
deal with relocation, low cost housing, health care planning, and community re-
12
» » r t r r r
E , F
i r i r _j r r • r £ ' r. ; r _i r i
— .
all —
IIIIIIBIII1IIIIIIIII
■llllllllllillBlllliB
sgij
AFFILIATED HOSPITAL MASTER PLAN; 1965
KEY
AREA DEVOTED FOR THE AFFILIATED HOSPITAL
AREA DEVOTED FOR MASS . MENTAL HEALTH ES3
AREA DEVOTED FOR HIGH RISE HOUSING, MOTEL ESS&Sa
AREA DEVOTED FOR HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL EXPANSION |
FIGURE 4
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS
joo 300/r^ JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNINC
(D
( r
c r
rr. r
r z r
■
*SHl —
lations. It was composed of Dr. Rashi Fein as chairman, eight faculty members,
2 student representatives from each class, and three non-professional Harvard
employees. No community representatives were invited until after extensive lob-
bying by the students. Even then the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard were not to be
recognized as a legitimate community organization and were not invited. No com-
munity residents from our neighborhood were invited. In fact, one sociologist on
the committee tried to ''prove" that by criteria of sociology we were too "eth-
nically heterogeneous" to be classified as a community. By that reasoning Harvard
was not destroying a community by tearing down houses. We survived that indignity.
We even survived the indignity when the Fein committee established a special "sub-
committee on housing and relocation" to deal with the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard.
Recommendations by the community would first have to pass the subcommittee, get
approved by the Fein committee, get approved by Dean Ebert and finally the Corp-
oration. And yet in complete indefference to the committees and to the community,
the Corporation announced its housing plans and the Affiliated Hospital announced
its site reevaluation thus proving the committee's powerlessness to generate, at-
tract or affect decisions. At no time were the committees consulted about these
changes. These committees, this beaurocratic ladder appears to have been set up
solely to insulate the community from the persons with the authority to negotiate
our future. Since then we've refused to deal with anyone other than those who have
the authority to make decisions.
This history of events was done to illustrate the development of our relationship
with Harvard. We can no longer assume that Harvard can independently make any de-
cision in the interest of the community. They have demonstrated themselves as hos-
tile, aggressive, and insensitive to the needs of a community of people. We have
therefore come to the conclusion that the basis for any further negotiation is the
understanding that the tenants have the right to determine their own destiny.
14
r
c r
r r
HISTORY OF THE LARGER PROBLEM
What is happening to the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard is indicative of what is hap-
pening to Mission Hill. As stated before, it is in the interests of the insti-
tutions to acquire as much land as they can. In 1960, the ownership comparison
between community uses and non-community uses illustrated an uneasy front (Fig-
ure 5). North was the great body of institutions inhabiting the Fenway Area,
the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital and the Harvard Medical School being at the
spearhead. To the South, at the boundary, was the Parker Hill Medical Center,
the Robert Brigham Hospital and the New England Baptist Hospital. Farther South,
across Heath Street, was the Veterans Hospital and a whole complex of smaller
medical institutions. Thus the Mission Hill community stood strategically be-
tween two large medical complexes. Because of the specialized nature of the
institutions, doctors, interns, and patients are constantly going from one insti-
tution to another to get the services they require. Thus it has been in the
interests of the institutions not only to acquire as much land as they could
but to acquire it in close proximity to one another. It appeared inevitable
that the two medical complexes would try to join.
Today, the ownership comparison is illustrated in Figure 6. To the North,
Harvard has acquired all of our neighborhood, already discussed , plus the
large tract of land known as the Ledge Site across Brigham Circle. The Service
vehicles for the Blood Bank have located across Huntington Avenue as did the
computer center for the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital. To the South, the large
tract of land between the Veterans' Hospital and the' New England Baptist Hos-
pital has been acquired by the Lahey Clinic, while the land Northernly adjacent
to that has been acquired by the Boston Edison Co. for a Power Transmission
Station. A large parcel of land along Heath Street, on the Southern face of
the Hill is now owned by the Ruggles Street Baptist Church, who is now selling
it at a price that only institutions could afford.
Thus the convergence has begun. Brigham Circle, the center for community ser-
vices, is now surrounded on three sides by Harvard owned property and appears
doomed to become a private enclave of the Harvard Medical School. The process
of disintegration so skillfully used in our neighborhood is now going on on the
Hill proper. While Figure & shows what is admittedly owned by the institutions,
there is no telling how much is privately being purchased. What is known is
that long-time residents are selling their homes, transients are moving in,
and maintenance of those properties have been curtailed.
The New England Baptist Hospital has planned expansion of their present facili-
ties plus a 3,000 car garage on top of the hill. Access to this garage will be
Parker Hill Avenue and St. Alphonsus Street, two local residential streets that
would be incapable of taking the volume. Thus all the streets on the hill will
be infected by dangerous traffic, noise, and air pollution. More reasons why
community residents will be impressed upon to sell their homes.
The effects of this landgrabbing is telling on the community facilities. The
parochial school, Our Lady of Perpetual Help, is having severe economic problems
as their enrollment keeps dropping. Its enrollment between 1957 and 1967 de-
creased from 1350 to 900. Undoubtably it is lower now. If the parish school
is closed, the families whose children currently attend would be reluctant to
15
I
I
■rc
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP • 1960
KEY:
NON-COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL OWNERSHIP gjjjjj^
COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP I I
BOUNDARY OF MISSION HILL COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP
FIGURE 5
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS^
800
CD
JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
I i
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP ■ 1970
KEY:
NON-COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL OWNERSHIP
COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP [
BOUNDARY OF MISSION HILL COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP
FIGURE 6
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS^-
800
>r\ JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
\V ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
send their children to an antiquated facility like the Farragut School and would
probably leave the community. Furthermore, the city, in order to provide for
the increase of automobiles in the inner city (contributed to by the institutions)
has tentatively proposed to widen and/or straighten Huntington Avenue between
Brigham Circle and the Jamaicaway interchange. Right in the way of this re-
routing is the Farragut School. Since the policy of the Boston School Committee
is to build only "Community Schools", i.e. schools of at least 650 pupils, it
appears unlikely that there will be enough population to support a new school
unless the population decrease is checked.
The Peter Bent Brigham is scheduled to be torn down when the Affiliated Hospital
is built. However, the Affiliated has cut by half its plans for Ambulatory Health
Services. Thus in the midst of the medical capital of the world, there would
be little convenient health service for the Community.
Finally, in the acquisition of the Ledge Site, Harvard owns the most important
commercial facilities in the area: the food market, a bank, a cleaners, and sev-
eral other necessary facilities. They have a lease that expires in 1982. It
doesn't appear by examining Harvard's interests that they will renew the lease.
It doesn't appear, if the family population keeps dwindling, that the food mar-
ket or other center facilities could justify building another structure. Thus
even these last necessary facilities will be lost to the community.
It appears that unless these forces are checked the community will be dead within
the decade.
18
e r . r~. r~r r~r r~ r"
r , r
r f. [ I I t •!
-i -i ■«*
OPTIONS
19
r
r
The neighborhood within which the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard live has been pur-
chased and scheduled for demolition by Harvard University. The larger community
within which the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard live is also threatened with extinc-
tion because of institutional expansion. As tenants who wish to remain in the
community and who wish the community to remain, we see two basic options:
1. Fight to stay in our existing homes, encouraging our fellow citizens to help
us in our struggle, and attempt to thwart eviction and the dissolution of the
community.
2. Fully participate in the construction of relocation housing in a cooperative
effort to rebuild our community.
We have approached Harvard with naivete and trust and we have been hurt. We
have assumed that the agents of one of the greatest institutions in the world
would have the decorum to act like men and treat us likewise. We have swallowed
indignities, risked danger to our children, and are witnessing the destruction
of our dreams all in the hope that members of the various institutions could
grow along with us in compassion and cooperation. But the patience of men is
finite.
20
i- i ! i ■ i r
-=^ ft
.^ iT=3( =^i
21
r i r r r r r r r
r r
r R7
SOLUTION
Property Of
BOSTON RE8EVEL0PMEMT &UMR1IY
22
, \r * r
nr I — -CE I _ IT I if
tu
GENERAL PROPOSITIONS
This report is an exploration of the second of the two options. It is the
final attempt on our part to deal with the members of Harvard as reasonable
people. It is an attempt to mutually solve the problems that afflict us both.
It rests on the fragile assumption that people are strong enough to swallow
their pride in the heat of emotional agitation and rationally and compassion-
ately cooperate. We expect mutual respect.
The Roxbury Tenants of Harvard propose five points of action which it feels
is the minimum necessary to rectify the situation:
1. Harvard University should continue their committment of adequate repair
and maintenance of the existing community housing until relocation has
been completed and such time as the removal of this housing is justified.
2. There shall be no taking of land within the RTH neighborhood by any insti-
tution until those residents affected are properly relocated into the new
housing or other facilities satisfactory to them.
3. The Roxbury Tenants of Harvard and/or their designee should sponsor and
develop this housing and Harvard should help them in this endeavor.
4. Rents in this new housing should be what existing residents can afford.
Apartments should be large enough for existing families and there should
be enough apartments for all who wish to stay.
5. Harvard University should help salvage the Mission Hill community by
helping to provide for community facilities and by supplying enough
family size apartments to help support them.
23
i : r
H.
PROPOSED SOLUTION TO MAINTENANCE
The administration of services in the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard neighborhood
has not been adequate. (See appendix 1, Management Proposal, for detailed proof).
There appear to be two alternative approaches to achieve adequate maintenance
in the RTH neighborhood.
1. The Roxbury Tenants of Harvard could hire their own management corporation
to insure that those employed are directly accountable to the users of their
services.
2. Hunneman & Co., directed by Harvard could continue to administer services
provided that adequate maintenance would be guaranteed and immediately im-
plemented.
RTH is willing to consider adequate maintenance and repair of existing housing
by Hunneman & Co. as an alternative to Tenant Management. It must be understood
by all that for this to be an acceptable alternative there must be demonstrable
change in attitude by Hunneman & Co. and Harvard University. Henry Cutler,
Harvard's manager for real estate, promised in a letter dated January 21, 1970,
that this change has indeed taken place (see appendix 2). In that letter it
was also promised:
1. At least two years notice will be given to tenants of any reuse of the prop-
erty.
2. All hazards to health and safety in the area will be immediately corrected
pending a building condition survey, unless rehabilitation is totally un-
feasible.
3. If the tenants wish, rear porches previously destroyed will be replaced.
4. Rents in areas 1 & 2 will remain at their present levels.
5. Empty apartments will be rented.
6. Area 3 will hereafter be used for rental housing.
7. All rehabilitation necessary and desirable in area 3 will be carried out.
Rehabilitation necessary to assure health and safety will not be reflected
in the rents. Harvard will accept a 6% return from the rents according to
"fair value".
8. Harvard will pay moving expenses of any families wishing to move from area
(which may be taken first) to unaffected areas.
9. Harvard will paint and paper these apartments and subsidize the rent dif-
ference for one year.
10. A new maintenance and rental office will be established to initiate communi-
cation and quicker response.
24
r r
r r
RTH agrees with and accepts these additions and exceptions:
1. Before people are moved from any area a thorough justification must be pre-
sented to RTH and be accepted.
2. If rehabilitation is totally unfeasible and prohibits occupancy this must be
a judgement agreed to by RTH.
3. Any recommendation for further rehabilitation work of Harvard owned housing
outside areas 1 & 2 (and within the RTH neighborhood) which may result in a
rent increase must be with the knowledge and approval of the Tenant affected
or RTH in the case of a vacant apartment.
4. The porches should be replaced as part of the rehabilitation process but
should not be reflected in any rent increase.
5. Repair expenses from area 1 & 2 should not be reflected in area 3 rents.
6. Harvard will not be required to incur moving expenses for new tenants of
empty apartments; however, all tenants living in the neighborhood should
have first priority if and when new relocation housing is built.
7. The "further repairs" other than those for health and safety, that will be
charged to the tenant, must be made with the knowledge and approval of the
tenant (or RTH in the case of a vacant apartment.)
8. This project is to be considered non-profit for Harvard as well as RTH.
Rents in area 3 must be justified and agreed to by RTH solely on the basis
of taxes, insurance, improvements, maintenance, and mortgage debts.
9. Relocation payments and services in accordance with the recommendations of
RTH in January, 1970, should apply to all tenants when and if they move
from the area or into the new housing. The only qualification is point 6
of this list.
10. A mechanism should be established to resolve issues of maintenance, repair,
and rent. Representatives of Harvard University, Hunneman & Co., and RTH
should be included in this mechanism.
25
r r
I I I r
r r r r
'. ,
PROPOSED SOLUTION TO RELOCATION
& CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING
The foremost understanding upon which we are proceeding with this proposal is
that no tenant will be required to move from where he is now living until new
housing that he can afford and that is satisfactory to him is available and
ready for occupancy.
It is important to both Harvard and RTH that this relocation be done with the
fullest knowledge and least friction possible. However, a group is composed of
many individual identities and the demands of one may be contradictory to another.
Large scale housing design and economics require a concensus on values, taste,
and priorities in order to make decisions. A satisfactory solution for each
tenant might be difficult.
A function of a community corporation is to democratically arbitrate these
individual contradictory demands and to keep the whole community informed so
that a concensus based not on individual taste but on reason can be found. It
appears that the democratic mechanism of decision making is the only one that
will ensure that the new units will be satisfactory to all. Thus it is imper-
ative that the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard, as a democratic corporation repre-
senting the user group of the housing, be in a position to determine the plan-
ning, design, the construction, and general development decisions. Otherwise,
a frictionless relocation would be impossible.
Another important understanding is that there must be apartments large enough
for existing families and numerous enough for all who wish to stay.
By concensus of the RTH community, Family Housing is to be considered low-rise.
This is because:
1. The supervision of children at play demands that the mothers be close both
visually and audially. Four stories is the maximum height from which such
supervision can occur.
2. A subtle form of security is that the features of strangers can be seen from
apartment windows. Crime is repressed more by the fear of being seen than
by the actuality. Likewise security is more apt to be felt by the probabil-
ity that friendly eyes are watching. Four stories is the maximum height for
seeing such detail.
3. Families with children need private or semi-private outdoor space more than
singles or young couples because of mothers' need to supervise, and children's
need of spontaneous creativity in growing up. Only low-rise can provide
private outdoor space that could serve these purposes.
4. Young children have difficulty in negotiating elevators. They have been
known to fall down shafts, urinate while waiting to go up, and cause ex-
pensive damage.
5. Neighborhood communication is a horizontal phenomenon. Family strolls with
doorstep conversations is the normal method for transmitting information.
Thus low-rise is appropriate for families whose group relationships are
in the immediate neighborhood. Students, singles, young couples generally
26
I"
i ;
i , i
i i i
I I L! [' D I
*=a mm ism j^ ssi £§i
have most of their group relationships elsewhere.
Thus, the low-rise apartments should be predominantly 3,4, and 5 bedroom units
and be primarily for families with children. The high rise, with the spectacular
views and easy access, is appropriate for singles, young couples, and perhaps
families with babies, -
The physical distinction of large apartments low and small apartments high is not
intended to completely segregate the different groups from each other. In fact,
assumiag group identities are established and unthreatened, it is hoped that
students, doctors, staff, and existing community residents would like to live
near each other.
Phase 1 of the Harvard housing building program has proposed, for the area known
as the Convent Site, 400 units of housing. It has been agreed that 200 of these
units will be developed as high-rise, elevatored and between 8 and 20 stories,
and 200 units will be developed as low-rise, walkups a maximum of 4 stories. We
consider this an equitable mix.
A power plant to serve most of the institutions in the area has been proposed
to be included on the Convent Site. Harvard has refused the Community the feas-
ibility study and the pollution study of the power plant so the Community has not
fully considered how or if it can be integrated with the housing. Harvard has
stated it will need approximately three acres of land, the actual building of
which would require only 1 acre of land. The rest of the land would house under-
ground storage drums. Because FHA requirements in recreational space and siting
are the bare minimum, for comfortable planning, the housing demands 100% use
of the Convent Site. However, there is the possibility that by integrating the
parking requirements of the high-rise, and some of the recreational requirements
with the power plant, the power plant might fit.
AREA APPORTIONMENT:
The following figures have been included to demonstrate how much land is expected
to be devoted for each purpose on the Convent Site. They are included for illus-
trative purposes only. The complete breakdowns can be found in appendix 3.
TOTAL AREA OF SITE 451,946 sf .
MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR FAMILY HOUSING 216,947 sf.
MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR HIGH RISE HOUSING 67,232 sf .
MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR RECREATION 34,899 sf .
MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR TRANSPORTATION 15,000 sf .
TOTAL AREA DEVOTED TO POWER PLANT 117,918 sf.
27
LI
f^i o i^sii =-i
PROPOSED SOLUTION TO RENTS
On May 6th, 1969 Harvard promised that "no residential displacement occur until
a similar amount of replacement housing AT COMPARABLE RENTS and located in near-
by areas, is available for those families to be relocated." This means to the
RTH residents that they must be rents RTH can afford, otherwise the replacement
housing is senseless. The purpose of this section is to define what COMPARABLE
RENTS mean and how it can be achieved.
Today, all money devoted to the construction of low and moderate income housing
is dependent on subsidization by the Federal Government. The principal source
of this subsidization is the Federal Housing Administration bill, section 236,
which by means of subsidizing the market interest rate of bank loans to 1% can
appreciably bring down the rents.
In order to insure that the money is efficiently used and the housing is built
for whom its meant, the FHA has set a series of maximum policy requirements. The
maximum construction cost requirements, like the others based on National price
probabilities, are extremely difficult to meet in Boston where construction
costs are abnormally high. However, the problem is not so much as meeting the
requirements as paying for the high construction costs. While the government does
subsidize the costs somewhat, the people who pay most of it are the users; the .
tenants. The question is; are the rents necessary to pay such high construction
costs going to be low enough for the tenants to be able to afford them?
The rents the RTH neighborhood pays now range from $70 to $120/ month, with an
average of $90/ month, for a typical apartment of 4-5 rooms, without utilities.
These are common rents for owner-occupied dwellings in Roxbury.
We can assume that the development budget for the new housing will be scraping
the cieling FHA allows, and we can also assume the rents will be the maximum
the bill provides by means of taking 25% of the maximum adjusted incomes allowed:
APT. SIZE
236 MAX..
Eff .
$5,670
lbd.
6,200
2bd.
7,020
3bd.
7,695
4bd.
8,235
PROBABLE RENTS
$118.00/mo.
129.40/mo.
146.25/mo.
160.30/mo.
171.55/mo.
MAX. MORTGAGE AMOUNTS
$11,600
16,300
19,550
24,650
27,900
These can hardly be considered comparable rents.
While some of the community residents have low enough incomes to be eligible for
the Boston Housing Authority's Leased Housing Program where they are expected to
pay 23% of their income, the majority of the residents would be expected to pay
the above rents. Furthermore, many might not even be eligible if the above rents
was much more or less than 25% of their income. If 236 is used to develop the
housing, the burden is upon Harvard to find programs where ALL community residents
would be eligible.
Assuming all the residents would somehow be eligible, then the question is how
do we justify the difference between what the residents now pay (and would have
payed if Harvard did not acquire the buildings) and what they are expected to pay
for the new housing? Considering they will actually have smaller rooms, less
28
rooms, less privacy, and less convenience with the new housing, how can it be
justified as being COMPARABLE?
Obviously, it can't. It therefore must be understood that it is a sacrifice on
the part of the community to move into the new housing at all. It is a sacrifice
we are willing to make in the interests of cooperation; providing we can afford it.
It is even possible for us to live there considering the FHA rent and income
limitations? Can we afford it?
The following is a typical budget of a family of four; father, mother, sister,
brother; the head of household of which earns $8500 and who would be eligible
for a three bedroom apartment.
TYPICAL BUDGET
Total income $8500 . 00
Ajusted income ($8500-2x$600-5%$8500) 7475.00
Federal income tax 1047 .50
Mass . income tax 253.04
Social Security 274.40
Medical Insurance 275.75
Life Insurance 115 . 05
Food expenses (@ $2 . 00/person/day) 2912 . 00
Transportation (Public- @ .45/trip; 2 persons/ 2 trips/ day;
6 days/ week) 561.60
Dental, Doctor, and Pharmaceutical expenses 340.00
Clothing 376 . 00
Laundry and Dry Cleaning ( @ $3.00/ week) 156.00
School expenses 102 . 00
Church contributions ( @ $2.00/ week) 104 . 00
Telephone expenses (Minimum) 99.6-6
Barbers , Hairdressers 65 .00
Children's allowance (Min. $1.50/ week/ each) 156.00
Recreation 148 . 00
Gifts 47 . 00
Miscellaneous (Newspapers, cigarettes, magazines) 146.00
Sub total of expenses $7180.00
Rent ( @ $90.00/mo.) 1080.00
Utilities ( @ $20.00/mo.) •• 240.00
Total expenses $8500 . 00
If we substituted into this resident's current budget the FHA requirement of
25% of the adjusted income in place of the rent he now pays, he would have a
29
tl
;wJ .—J =a
deficit of:
Sub total of expenses $ 7180 . 00
Rent and utilities @ 25% $7475 or $155.60/mo 1867.70
Total expenses '. 9047 . 70
Total income 8500.00
Deficit 547.70
And where would the resident get the additional $547.70? If he earned it, he
would not be eligible for the project. Should he not launder his clothes, or
give to his church, or go to the movies, or give his children any allowance,
or give any gifts, or buy shoes, or buy newspapers? The problem is that the
236 guidelines, adopted from a national price index, just cannot apply in Boston.
If 236 is to be used to finance the housing on the convent site and if RTH
residents are expected to inhabit it, then some change or some subsidization
is necessary.
What would be an acceptable rent whereby a family resident might conceivably
afford to live there? When the housing act was presented to Congress, there
was considerable debate to make the required rent 20% of income. What would
be the deficit at 20% income:
Sub total of expenses $ 7180.00
Rent and utilities @ 20% $7475 or 125.00/mo 1495.00
Total expenses 8675.00
Total income 8500 . 00
Deficit $ 175 . 00
We suspect that through austere budgeting the tenant might be able to meet this
deficit. However, as one can see in the budget, it must be considered the max-
imum he can be expected to pay.
Thus before the residents can accept any relocation they must be assured that
the rents will not exceed 20% of their adjusted income and that ALL residents
will be eligible. This can be accomplished by a careful selection of programs,
a change in the act, a subsidization from any of the various institutions or
agencies involved and/or relief from other speculative ventures.
30
\
c ( ■ r
1 i i
PROPOSED SOLUTION TO SALVAGE
THE LARGER COMMUNITY
If the forces that are acting on the Mission Hill Community are not checked, the
community will die.
We see no purpose in working hard for new housing if there would be no community
to relate to. There would be no reason to stay without our friends, without a
good school for our children, without a convenient place to shop, without the
services and programs oriented to family people, without clean air to breathe.
It would make our struggle useless.
But it would be a larger tragedy. We see what is happening to our community as
indicative of what is happening to Boston and what is happening to cities across
the country. The city is becoming an institutional wasteland. At night it is
dark, dull and dangerous. In the day it is filled with homogeneous serious acti-
vity. It is becoming just a big feeding trough for people who really don't care
about it. To them, it's just a place where they have to work, and maybe to blow
some steam. The people who do "live" in the city are overproportionately either
the young or the old. The city seems to be a dormitory and never a home. It is
becoming part of a big big machine.
We feel that without inner-city communities the city will lose its purpose and
our society will lose its foundation. The city has always been a place to learn
in and learn from. Through the diversity of experiences that happen in a metro-
polis, a child learns how to deal with people and situations and learns the
nature of his power. People learn tolerance and humility as well as self-respect
and pride. By transcending the day-to-day conflicts, by consistently attempting
to understand the different people and the multitude of informations that barrage
us and confuse us, we grow and in growing learn how to live with eachother. This
is the most pressing problem our country, our society, and ourselves must face.
This is the essential purpose of the city.
Remove communities from the city, remove children from the city, remove diversity
of experiences, people and situations, remove the democratic decision making of
communities to that of an oligarchical corporate power structure and the struggle
for survival is lost.
The question we ask is what steps must be taken to salvage the Mission Hill com-
munity?
The Roxbury Tenants of Harvard, together with the Mission Hill Civic Association
have developed a master plan that we feel is necessary to reverse the decline of
the community. The general strategy is to convince the people that the community
has a future; that institutional expansion has been controlled, that "family flight"
is being checked, that new and finer facilities will be provided and that more
community minded people will be attracted.
31
I
I
r VT
CT
(X (
__a -i ,-*=§ i-^i i«^ i:s==*a iwd <— j: r^a ,"-=a
PROGRAM FOR THE MASTER PLAN
1. More community housing must be built to insure enough population to support
the community school and the community services.
2. A new community school must be built to assure existing residents that the
community will last, that the education will be the finest, and that suburb-
bound families will be attracted.
3. Community health facilities must be provided to promote mutual institution-
community respect, to provide a now-too-costly service, and to attract more
families.
4. The existing community activity center (Brigham Circle) must be transformed
from an automobile oriented facility to a pedestrian oriented facility. Since
the RTH neighborhood is across Huntington Avenue which acts as a dangerous
and difficult barrier, this will become a bridge for both RTH residents and
the institutional personnel alike with the larger community. It will contri-
bute to a sense of place and identity for the community and will reconstitute
the area's image as a family oriented community.
5. New commercial facilities must be built if and when the existing shopping
facilities are evicted.
6. An efficient traffic plan must be developed to keep institutional bound
traffic away from residential community streets.
7. Institutional growth must be provided for rather than just being obstructed
or just being left free to land grab.
PHASE 1
Phase 1 of the plan is concerned with the immediate problems at hand. The main-
tenance and repair of the existing community must be immediately done before pro-
gress on any other issue is attempted. Assuming that this is ascertained, phasing
can begin on development of the Convent Site. Since the site is currently used
for surface parking, it will be Harvard's responsibility to relocate the spaces.
A parking garage could be built with the power plant to relocate some of these
spaces on two conditions:
1. That the garage and the power plant can be proven to be compatible with the
housing.
2. That space in the garage can be used to fulfil FHA parking requirements for
the housing.
The power plant could be built in this first phase provided all the community's
concerns are answered.
30
r r r — [™ r
r^=: rr
irr [rr \r ■ tr
—J
iiiiiiiiiiiii
PHASE 1
1. REPAIR AND ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING COMMUNITY HOUSING,
2. RELOCATION OF 300 PARKING SPACES TO OTHER HARVARD SITE. -v_^
3. CONSTRUCTION OF POWER PLANT ON CONVENT SITE IF JUSTIFIED.
4. CONSTRUCTION OF 300 PARKING SPACE GARAGE WITH POWER PLANT.
FIGURE 7
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS r-£Z
JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
600V1/ ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
,®
r r r r
r ',<
PHASE 2
Assuming the garage has been built, we now have the opportunity to relocate some
of the parking spaces on the convent site and can begin construction on the 400
units of housing. This phase is critical for Harvard as it allows the parking
from the Binney Street lot to be relocated on the old power plant site, so that
the first phase of the Affiliated can be built.
34
r r r
r r;
H
Illlllllllllill
si mils
PHASE 2
1. RELOCATION OF REMAINING PARKING SPACES FROM THE CONVENT SITE.
2. CONSTRUCTION OF 200 UNITS OF FAMILY HOUSING ON CONVENT SITE.
3. CONSTRUCTION OF 200 UNITS OF HIGH RISE HOUSING ON CONVENT SITE.
4. OPPORTUNITY TO DEMOLISH OLD POWER PLANT.
5. OPPORTUNITY TO RELOCATE PARKING FROM BINNEY STREET LOT TO OLD POWER PLANT LOT.
6. OPPORTUNITY TO CONSTRUCT 1ST STAGE AFFILIATED HOSPITAL.
FIGURE 8
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS^
200
JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
0Vi' ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
Rn(D
r r
i i
I"™
f«^ ,~* ,«a «l mm i«SI fesi
PHASE 3
The new housing has been built on the convent site and, assuming the rent, eli-
gibility, maintenance, and administration hurdles have been overcome, the neigh-
borhood now has the opportunity to relocate. Mass. Mental Health can build their
new facility and the Affiliated can expand and/or a large garage can be built on
another institutional site if justified to the community.
This phase begins overt measures to salvage the community. Since the existing
shopping center lease runs out in 1982 and since, by means of the plan, we can
justify to a food market concern that they can support a new shopping center,
this first new community facility can be built. Meanwhile, on the ledge site,
400 units of family housing and a new school (see Appendix 4) can be built. The
shopping center and the school are the two most important community facilities.
36
■■■'«* irrr ' I irrc- re
x I ii, i . r..
asm -__j , - i
II fillip
PHASE 3
1. RELOCATION Ut ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD INTO NEW HOUSING.
2. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SHOPPING CENTER
3. CONSTRUCTION OF 400 UNITS OF FAMILY HOUSING ON LEDGE SITE.
4. CONSTRUCTION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON LEDGE SITE.
5. OPPORTUNITY FOR MASS. MENTAL HEALTH TO EXPAND IF JUSTIFIED.
6. OPPORTUNITY TO CONSTRUCT EXPANSION OF AFFILIATED HOSPITAL AND/OR 1100 SPACE
GARAGE IF JUSTIFIED.
7. CONSTRUCTION OF RING ROAD.
FIGURE 9
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS^
200
*n(D
600
JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
I n §5 ir ii si
11 "Jen II iiti I h n i [| fnc
.
r«a* r—i .-*^ f^ mi pai fi— j Bssai
__
PHASE 4
It is this phase that will give an entire face lifting to the community. We assume
the new school, the new shopping center and the new housing will be enough to stop
the community decline and maintain the population while construction continues.
But the completion of this phase is expected to reverse the decline and actually
promote the reconstitution of the community. It will do this by giving a new
image to the area as a healthy, progressive, educational, family, and pedestrian
oriented community. The major accomplishment of this phase will be the construc-
tion of a pedestrian plaza on street level at Brigham Circle. Huntington Avenue
can be directed underneath similar to the street behind Harvard Yard at Cambridge,
freeing the surface for pedestrians. In symbol and reality this will demonstrate
to the people that from now on in the city, people will have the priority over
automobiles. A further demonstration of this would be the actualizing of a
proposed subway linking the Blue line with the Riverside Line, that would swing
right by the plaza. While space is provided for this subway link along Huntington
Avenue, use of this for widening of Huntington Avenue is strongly discouraged.
Tenants wish it to be known that they no longer will tolerate the noise and air
pollution, the land appetite, and the danger of automobiles in the city.
Additional housing can be built for families and for elderly and an additional
stage for the Affiliated can be provided as the Peter Bent Brigham gets torn
down.
library mH°m*
38
■r r
1
ii— a
PHASE 4
1. RELOCATION OF FARRAGUT SCHOOL INTO NEW SCHOOL.
2. RELOCATION OF EXISTING COMMERCIAL INTO NEW COMMERCIAL.
3. OPPORTUNITY TO DEMOLISH PETER BENT BRIGHAM HOSPITAL.
A. OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A DETOUR AT BRIGHAM CIRCLE AND TO BUILD A SUBWAY OR
TROLLEY STATION.
5. OPPORTUNITY TO DIG TUNNEL AT BRIGHAM CIRCLE AND TO CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN PLAZA.
6. CONSTRUCTION 250 UNITS OF FAMILY HOUSING.
7. CONSTRUCTION OF 150 UNITS OF HIGH RISE HOUSING.
8. OPPORTUNITY TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL EXPANSION OF AFFILIATED HOSPITAL.
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
, , A\ JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
"qq ^""^500^ ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNINr
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS^
*4SB3* >'!_' "M I 31 >E3| =i !v;3| ^^3
Pffi.SE 5
In this phase, new health facilities can be provided (See Appendix 5). Office
space can be built to subsidize the construction of the plaza and the housing.
Once the Brigham has been torn down, the Harvard Medical School can expand and
put their new administration building right on the new activity center. This union
represents a precedent in University-Community relations that could have far
reaching effects. On the plaza itself some facility could be placed that could
express this new cooperation. It could be a community center, a library, a medical-
community exhibition area, or some other cultural facility. Its presence at the
end of the long Huntington Avenue vista would constantly dramatic the work that
was done here.
40
r~ n~
r r
r i
-a -=i
Illlllllllllll
llftlll
PHASE 5
1. CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY HEALTH FACILITIES, GENERAL AMBULATORY CARE.
2. OPPORTUNITY FOR HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL TO EXPAND.
3. CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE BUILDING ON PLAZA5 ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL ON TREMONT STREET.
4. CONSTRUCTION OF CULTURAL CENTER ON PLAZA.
5. CONSTRUCTION OF 100 UNITS OF ELDERLY HOUSING ON TREMONT STREET.
FIGURE 11
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS
.qk JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
'n\D ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
I
Lf.
THE PLAN
The final plan could look like figure 12. We have stressed a pedestrian community
whereby children and adults would walk and cross a minimum of streets. The plaza
and a bridge at Parker Hill Avenue have been provided to negotiate Huntington Av-
enue, the biggest barrior in the area. There would be now pleasant pedestrian com-
munication between all areas of the community as well as between both Medical
complexes. The area now has a firm foundation with which to grow and last. More
than 850 units of new family housing as well as 450 units of high rise housing
have been provided.
42
liniiiTiiiTkiii
nam
LAND REUSE PLAN
KEY:
COMMERCIAL FACILITIES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES
HIGH RISE HOUSING
FAMILY HOUSING
MAJOR PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Mmm^
I-.-.-: :••••■•!
FIGURE 12
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS o
200
0JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
f r t ! .t i
3— » 3Mi m«| ■■»■ <—ii «w ;■<■» ■•**•! *«»» *-"i| Tl ■*i*iil SBiii^
HOW THE NEEDS OF THE
INSTITUTIONS CAN BE MET
The medical institutions in the area have been engaged in intense competition
for land, for doctors and staff, for research scientists, for parking space, for
money. They have felt that if they didn't purchase land now the other institutions
would. Since there appeared to be a limited amount of land, they began land-grabing
so that they could be assured a place for future growth. However, this mistrust
has caused them to be involved in actions that have been costly to them and to the
community. Harvard has purchased land which, in terms of its own projected needs , it
couldn't justify for fifty years, and in the process, due to student reaction,
may have lost millions of dollars in endowments. The Affiliated Hospital might
have justified its space but because of noncooperation between themselves and between
the community have not been able to make development deadlines. They will now have
trouble financing even a portion of their stated need. The L a hey Clinic, who pur-
chased the largest parcel of land on the hill, will probably never build there
and the New England Baptist Hospital, because their plans have not considered the
community may not get some necessary city improvements to carry out their devel-
opment. The traffic and parking situation because it has always been uncoordin-
ated is choking access to all the institutions. Thus, because of lack of cooper-
ation, the institutions, along with destroying the community, are hurting them-
selves .
This plan offers them the possibility to coordinate their respective developments
along WITH the community. It offers them the opportunity to spend on only that
which they need.
The first of the needs previously listed is spatial and has been responded to in
the following ways:
1. The Affiliated Hospital can begin construction on schedule. While they
can't economically justify it and while they stated they have no intention of
crossing Francis Street, enough land has been provided so that all of their
original development phases can be carried out. If they don't forsee expanding
on it or choose a mixed land use, the land can be used for a 2,000 car inter-
institutional garage.
2. Mass Mental Health has the opportunity to expand as they see fit on a parcel
of land equal to what they now occupy, and as much as they intend to use.
3. The Power Plant can be built in the very first phase so that it can make its
1973 deadline and so the old plant can be turned over to the Children's Hos-
pital for their expansion.
4. Harvard University can grow as it has planned into the site where the Peter
Bent Brigham now stands. The proposed plan gives Harvard the opportunity to
develop adjacent to the new plaza; capitalizing on the access and the prestige
it can offer as well as being able to build all the space they can justifiably
predict.
The institutions need to provide housing and services to attract doctors and
personell turns out to be in phase with the interests of the community. The com-
munity only requires that families move into support facilities and to reverse
the exodus. It is likely that much of the new housing will be inhabited by hos-
pital personnel . ; families of which would not consider coming unless a good
Preperty Of
BOSTON R£5EVEL0P*I£MT AUTHORITY
Library 44
!■ i r . i
F I 1 7 i , y-..
educational system, good commercial services, and good access was offered. In
other words, having a thriving inner city community is the best method for
attracting those talented doctors and scientists the research facilities are
being built for. ;,,-•..■
The need for parking spaces and a quick, and efficient street system to service
the hospital traffic can also be provided without sacrificing the community's
interests. The first technical memorandum from Wilbur Smith & Associates, traffic
consultants hired to survey the area, reported that 55% of the hospital traffic
from 14 institutions in the Fenway Medical Community would be localized between
the Children's Hospital and the Affiliated. The ring road and the parking garages
along it can provide for these traffic needs directly from points of origin with-
out disturbing community streets, and will greatly contribute to decongesting
the Fenway .Furthermore only 21.6% of the persons visiting now use public trans-
portation. Of the 63.1% who come by auto, only 6.4% are patients. Thus it appears
there is a generous opportunity to reduce the volume of automobile trips by pro-
viding better public transportation to visitors, and staff. Thus the new subway
line, the plaza station, and the pleasant pedestrian promanades would contribute
to cutting down the traffic congestion, the space devoted for parking and pollution.
The need for inter-institutional communication is provided by a pleasant promanade
system and efficient traffic plan that ties in well with the projected design of
the Affiliated Hospital. All institutions can relate well with each other, with
the community and with restaurants, banks, shops and other services that would
make working here more enjoyable.
While a plan should not be considered a static document, but a mechanism for a
fair integration of interests, this plan, at the present, appears to provide for
the needs of the institutions.
45
f n r^
K ■ J
iliiiiiiiiiiliifilniiii
HOSPITAL TRAFFIC PLAN
J. ORIGINS:
A. BROOKLINE STREET, NORTH FROM MASS. PIKE, BACK BAY, CAMBRIDGE, AREA NORTH.
B. BROOKLINE STREET, SOUTH FROM ROUTE 9, AREA WEST, FROM HEATH STREET AREA SOUTH.
C. HUNTINGTON AVENUE, FROM DOWNTOWN, SOUTH END, SOUTH BOSTON.
D. TREMONT STREET, FROM ROXBURY, AREA SOUTH.
-' DESTINATIONS :
PARKING GARAGES VMM
EMERGENCY SERVICE ■■■
3. REMAINING COMMUNITY UNDISTURBED BY HOSPITAL TRAFFIC. (ASSUMING NEW ENGLAND BAPTIST
AND/OR LAHEY CLINIC IS SERVICED FROM HEATH STREET.)
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS-
900
>k JOHN SH
•Mnvl/ ARCHITE
JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
fif»nVJ/ ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
r
r
F~
I
J; , i^ E23 - ET3 CCT i ET^ . CS1 ; E"* CSi K^ i C25 C* ^^ C^5 3~3
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
47
f
I
r .1
i\,..*..: " 11
The ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD, the association representing the persons and
families living South of Francis Street, who are threatened with mass eviction
due to institututional expansion, and who intend to remain there, propose to
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, the owner of the property the neighborhood inhabits, the
party who intends to expand and who is faced with enforcing that eviction, that
they work together in a" COOPERATIVE EFFORT to solve their respective problems.
The nature of this cooperation is proposed to be that Harvard University and
their institutional affiliates shall be guaranteed the expansion of the facilities
that they feel is necessary, in an orderly and rational fashion, and that the
Roxbury Tenants of Harvard shall be guaranteed the security of shelter and the
stabilization and strengthening of the entire community that they feel is neces-
sary.
The five points of action that the neighborhood feels is necessary for this
security are:
1. Harvard University shall continue their committment of adequate repair and
maintenance of the existing community housing until relocation has been com-
pleted and at such time that the removal of this housing is justified.
2. There shall be no taking of land within the RTH neighborhood by any institu-
tion until those residents affected are properly relocated into the new hous-
ing or other facilities satisfactory, to them.
3. The Roxbury Tenants of Harvard and/or their designee shall sponsor and devel-
op this housing and Harvard shall help them in this endeavor.
4. Rents in this new housing shall be what existing residents can afford. Apart-
ments shall be large enough for existing families and there should be enough
apartments for all who wish to stay.
5. Harvard University shall help salvage the Mission Hill Community by helping
provide for community facilities and by supplying enough family size units
to help support them.
This proposal is specifically concerned with point #3; the sponsorship and devel-
opment of the area known as The Convent Site (See Figure 14) . The tenants feel
that RTH must be considered the sponsor and developer of the area because the
democratic mechanism of decision making is the only way that will insure that the
new units will be satisfactory to all and the only way that will insure a fair
and frictionless method of relocation.
THE ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD PROPOSE THAT:
1. Harvard University lease the land known as the Convent Site to RTH and/or
their designee for a minimum of 50 years at $1.00 per year.
2. Harvard University be responsible to assist' RTH in securing the required fin-
ancing and subsidization programs to guarantee rents all existing residents
can afford. This project will not reach execution until a rent schedule ac-
ceptable to RTH is available.
3. The area bounded by the Convent Site, Huntington Avenue, Francis Street and
Kemp ton Street Extension shall be maintained a community residential, com-
mercial and educational area, as established in the Land Use Plan (Figure 12) .
48
DEVELOPMENT SITE
FIGURE 14
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS
O SO 100'
<b
> JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
fc; fr= F~ r"»
The Roxbury Tenants of Harvard propose to build approximately 400 units of new
housing, 200 of which would be small apartments in high rise towers, and 200 of
which would be large apartments in walkup structures. The land we will be working
with is known as the Convent Site. It is approximately 10 acres and RTH expects
full use to be devoted to the housing. However, if the proposed power plant can
be justified as compatible, if its land can be used for the parking and recrea-
tional requirements, and if its power will be supplied to the housing, then it
may be included and the housing site can be considered approximately 7 acres.
Thig will yield a density of 57 units/ acre.
FINANCING
Construction and permanent financing will most likely involve the FHA 236 program
or a FHA 236 with the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) . The average
living unit will be approximately 1,000 s.f . and the development cost for
this unit will be approximately $25,000.00. (These figures are minimum FHA
space requirements and FHA maximum mortgage limits.- It is hoped substantial
savings may be realized through efficient design and construction. )Total devel-
opment cost will be close to $10,000,000.
The ownership and management will be either cooperative/non-profit or limited
dividend.
DEVELOPMENT
The principle task in the development phase is to determine the program and to
execute it. The determination of the program must be accomplished with the assist-
ance of the people that will execute the project or there will be no assurance
that it will actualize. It is important that all principle participants in the
program must be selected by RTH. These people must feel responsible to RTH and
make every effort to satisfy their needs and desires. We define these principle
participants as :
1. Packager (Development consultant, or housing consultant)
2 . Lawyer
3 . Architect
4. Contractor
RTH would accept, desire and respect all advice forwarded by Harvard University
before and during this process, but the final selection must be that of RTH.
The program must reflect the prime objectives as stated earlier, arid must include
a rent subsidy program, In addition to leased housing, Federal and State supple-
ments, whereby the tenants could afford to live there. This has been demonstrated
to mean that the rent should not be more than 20% Of a family's Income.
MANAGEMENT
The principle task in the management phase will be to maintain and enrich the
executed development program. There seems to be three areas related to management
that must involve and be satisfactory to the tenants:
1. Rent must be determined solely as a reflection of the mortgage and operating
costs, with every reasonable attempt to maintain the lowest possible level.
50
|X= rr"
S3
MONTHS
1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
RESERVATION
OF FUNDS
ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN
DESIGN REVIEW
FHA CLOSING-
FHA-BANK
START
CONSTRUCTION
121-A CORPORATION
FORMATION
s( hei t
at ici
les igr
Heveli
pr«s
woi rk
i a
woik
( one .
room It
dr
film
con mi t
i -\\ mentis
PROPOSED RTH DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT TIME = 30-35 MONTHS.
FIGURE 15
ROXBURY TENANTS
BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS
OF HARVARD
JOHN SHARRATT ASSOCIATES INC
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
i r
r
r~
F
r
F
F=
2. Tenant selection should be based on relocation priority and need.
3. Maintenance and improvements must reflect immediate needs as well as the
life of the project •and' the needs of all user groups of the development.
It must be remembered that the proposed relocation housing is for THE ROXBURY
TENANTS OF HARVARD. We are the ones who have the most to gain or lose. We are
the ones that will pay for and support the development .
CONCLUSION
Presented in this report has been the frustrating history of the relationship
cf our neighborhood with Harvard University. This is not an atypical situation.
The dilemma of university-community relations has been developing for many
years and promises to get worse with every major university in the country;
with Columbia in Harlem, NYU in the Village, Yale in New Haven, University of
Chicago in the South Side, etc.. In all these cases, the universities never
tried to sincerely respect and cooperate with the people they had to live with.
Public opinion considers Harvard the greatest university not because of its
endowment, not because of the size of its library, not because of its age,
but because it appears to be flexible and brave enough to try new ideas.
Harvard is seen as the setter of precedents. It has acquired its image not
because of the skill of its public relations men but because of the good
solutions to real problems it has accomplished.
We have such a problem here. We have a situation where for years every other
university has turned its back on its responsibility to its neighbors. We
have a situation where Harvard can use their great resources of power and
influence to solve rather than to avoid, to build rather than destroy, to
be benign rather than haughty, and to be a friend rather than a predator.
Harvard has the opportunity to set a precedent of cooperation not only to
other universities but to all men who have given up compassion for material
security, respect for self-aggrandizement. When an institution avoids doing
right action because it must account to its bankers then that institution
and all people concerned with it are no longer free. We do not want to be-
lieve that this has happened to Harvard. This is why this proposal has been
written.
52
I -
\ r
•r f r •[
1 S3 SI "^ ^3 ^Tl ^^ i ! — 1 ^3 ^9! 1=l ^ ^
APPENDICES
i I r
i j j - ' i 1 i j «. > J i -I ^ <
ill!!
ROXBURY TENANTS OF HARVARD, 52 FRANCIS STREET, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
JANUARY 6 TH , 1970
APPENDIX 1 ; MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL
PURPOSE
The concern of this report is with the 103 buildings owned by Harvard
University in the neighborhood represented by the Roxbury Tenants of
Harvard. Its purpose is to describe the current system of management,
to prove the inadequacies of that arrangement, to propose an alternative
management structure, and to prove its feasibility.
CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE:
When a tenant makes a contract with the owner of a building, it generally
means that the owner will provide various services necessary to habitate
the building for a certain price. This is known as the Terms of the Lease.
The function of a management corporation is to administrate these services
so that the owner can fulfill his contractural agreement. Thus, he is paid
by the tenants via the owner for these services. It is generally in the
interests of both tenants and owners that the management corporation does
its job effectively for when the services are well provided, the tenants
are happy; there would be no rent withholding, there would be a low vacancy
rate, and the owner's capital investment in the physical plant would be
protected. As long as there is a free market and as long as the owner is
interested in profit from his investment, then the role of a management
corporation has no conflict of interest. The system becomes upset when
either of those two conditions are not fulfilled. When we have a coerced
market, the tenants have no choice but to remain and the owner can exploit
them by failing to provide maintenance and operating services. Or when
the owner is not interested in profit or maintaining his physical assets,
then again he has no interest in seeing his contractural obligations fulfilled
and exploitation happens. In either case, the management corporation finds
its role having a conflict of interest.
Such a situation exists in our area of concern. We have a coerced market,
somewhat caused by the owner by depleting the housing stock, and we have
an owner interested in destroying his physical assets because of its land
value. In such a situation, the function of a Management Corporation is
unfulfilled. In fact, by being the tool of the owner, its purpose becomes
NOT to administrate services.
We intend to prove that, under the current system, the Management Corporation
has not fulfilled its function. We will list what the specific duties of
a Management Corporation are and we will show evidence that many of these
duties have not been performed.
54
— ~i ^•yj . i ''.;7j 'J ■ ■ ■ j — -j ^_k_J ■— —i ,— — I w=J
DUTIES OF THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION:
1. Renting Units
A. Effective advertisement
B. Apartment demonstrations
C. Checking Tenant references
D. Preparation and administration of leases
2. Collection of rents
3. Payment of debts
A. Mortgage debt service
B. Taxes
C. Operating expences
D. Legal expences
E. Insurance
F. Subcontracts
4. Providing operating services
A. Acquiring, informing, and policing subcontracters in;
1) Heating (oil, gas)
2) Plumbing (water)
3) Electrical work
4) Landscaping, grounds
5) General Janitorial work
B. Lobbying for more efficient use of city and corporate services in;
1) Garbage collection
2) Snow removal
3) Mail delivery
4) Police protection
5) Telephone service
6) Water service
5. Providing services for preventative maintenance
A. Acquiring, informing, and policing subcontractors in;
1) Painting
2) Roofing
3) Masonry repair
4) Carpentry repair
5) Plaster repair
6) Plumbing repair
7) Electrical repair
8) Windows
9) Floors
10) Heating and ventilating equipment
B. Lobbying for more efficient use of city and corporate services in;
1) Street repair
2) Lighting repair
3) Sewer maintenance
4) Signs and street furnature
5) Water lines
6) Telephone lines
7) Electrical lines
8) Gas lines
9) Fire department safety checks
55
'■""^-•^
~J
NEGLIGENCE OF THE MANAGEMENT CORPOR.
RENTING UNITS
A. There has been little effort
to advertise.
1. This can be proven by the
fact the renting office has
no sign or in way expresses
its function as an active
renting office.
2. Little or no newspaper
advertisement is used.
B. Renting practices are uninviting
and intimidating.
1. Office is barren and cold.
2. Application forms are unnec-
essarily long, personally
humiliating and therefore
intimidating.
C. Discriminatory renting practices
1. Preference has been given
to transients so as to avoid
responsibility of relocating
families.
2. Preference has been given
to persons who might instill
fear in families that do stay,
D. Uninterest in renting is con-
tributing to blight
1. Instead of repairing
unrented apartments, policy
appears to be to board them
up.
2. This policy contributes to
the neighborhood image as
undesireable, helps foster
blight, and forces families
to move.
a. Figure 1; Notice boarded
up windows .
b. Figure 2; Notice padlock
on door.
Figure 1,
Figure 2.
m
n
^.^j
II. PROVIDING OPERATING SERVICES AND
SERVICES FOR PREVENTATIVE MAINTEN-
ANCE.
A. Painting negligence
1. Due to lack of painting, rear
porches have rotted away. This
makes them dangerous safety
hazards. Rather than repair
them, management has chosen
to remove them making the rear
yards unuseable. Apartments
are awkward without them and
the doors that led to them
are dangerous momentoes.
a. Figure 3; Notice rotting
porch to right of removed
one.
b. Figure 4; Notice doors
are simply nailed shut.
2. Lack of painting causes quick
deterioration of all parts
of the exterior of wood build-
ings.
Figure 3.
Figure 4,
P7
Janitorial negligence
1. Due to lack of grounds pol-
icing and general clean up,
dangerous objects like re-
frigerators within which
children can play are left
in the open. This is a vio-
lation of the city safety
code,
a. Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Carpentry negligence
1. Stairs are structurally un-
sound and are without rail-
ings. This is a dangerous
safety hazard.
a. Figure 6; Notice no railing.
b. Figure 7; Notice sag, lack
of paint.
Figure 6.
H»r < PI
Figure 7,
( r
i
t ■ \ m
—i
Carpentry negligence continued
2. Ceilings are falling apart,
paint and wood chips fall,
boards with exposed nails
fall, and it structurally
unsound. This is *•. dangerous
health and. safety hazard,
a. Figure 8.
3. Railings have deteriorated
and are structurally unsound.
a. Figure 9.
D. Elecrical negligence
1. Wiring is haphazard and ex-
posed. This demonstrates that
professionals were not employ-
ed or the tenants were forced
to do the repairs themselves.
This is a dangerous fire haz-
ard., t
a. Figure 10; Wiring is danger-
ous because it can be easily
reached , cut , frayed or
water soaked.
Figure 8.
Figure 9,
Figure 10.
i r
r
r r r
Electrical negligence contin.
b. Figure 11; Notice wire
between door and frame.
This can fray the wire
and cause a fire in contact
with the wood.
2. Old wire needs to be replaced
as it can create shorts,
shocks, and fires.
a. Figure 12; Notice frayed
wire.
3. Electrical negligence is,
perhaps, the most dangerous
safety hazard of them all.
4. Door bells aren't fixed.
There is little responce
from the management corpora-
tion to requests by the
tenants .
a. Figure 13; Notice directions
one tenant must give to her
friends so that they can
contact her.
Figure 12.
Figure 13,
t» I
r r r r
I i •
Roofing negligence
1. Failure to repair the roof
has resulted in heavy leakage
within the apartments and has
caused damage to personal
property, has created a fire
hazard by leaking on the wir-
ing, and has created threats
to health.
a. Figure 14; Notice stain on
walls.
b. Figure 15; Leakage in the
pantry has caused personal
discomfort and damage to
personal property. Notice
buckets and mops.
c. Figure 16. Closeup of pre-
vious photograph shows
water dripping off electri-
cal fixture making it a
dangerous fire and health
hazard.
t 7. Jf . ~*z ** 4
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
1 —
r
1
Plumbing negligence
1. Leaky exposed plumbing results
in frustration, discomfort,
damage to walls and ceilings,
damage to personal property,
mildew, which invites termites,
cockroaches and other vermin,
and is a health hazard.
a. Figure 17; Notice exposed
pipes, damaged walls.
b. Figure 18; ruptured pipes
have resulted in cracked plas-
ter and peeling paint on the
ceilings.
c. Figure 19; Closeup of figure
17 shows mildewed wood.
Figure 17,
Figure 18,
,-*-a 1 o
f--_ r
r-
: "* t
F
Fenestration negligence
1. Little or no response is
given to tenant demands to
fix broken glass.
a. Figure 20; Notice magazines
are used to keep out the
cold.
b. Figure 21.
2 . In many cases , management de-
cides to board up windows
rather than replace the glass
(approximately the same cost).
This contributes to the feeling
of blight in the area and
causes families to leave.
a. Figure 22. Notice Plywood
boards.
Figure 20.
Figure 21,
Figure. 22,
f
r r
a • 5^ S ^ S3 -u ^ _ _^ — i ^
CONCLUSION:
The administration of services in the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard neigh-
borhood has not been adequate. Since the management corporation is one
of the largest in the city, we can assume this inadequacy is not because
of the firms incompetance but because of structural obligations of that
firm to an owner whose -interests lie outside of the housing market.
Since this fact has upset the normal responsibilities of tenant to manage-
ment to owner and vice-versa, so then must the contractural relationships
change .
PROPOSAL:
The Roxbury Tenants of Harvard propose that the obligations of the manage-
ment corporation be to the user group of their services; the tenants, that
the tenants ' association hire and pay for their own management corporation
to insure these obligations. Following is a brief description how this can
legally and economically work.
FEASIBILITY:
The legal feasibility can be accomplished by a simple change in the lease
contract. Previously, the leasee buys both the right to inhabit and use
the property on the one hand and the servicing of this property on the
other from the landlord. This proposal divides the agreement whereby the
leasee only pays the landlord for the right of use, while he puts the re-
mainder of the money in a fund, which through his vote in the tenants'
association, he can control the management. The tenants therefore become
responsible for their own upkeep and, through contract with a bonded firm,
can accept liability.
Duties of the Roxbury Tenants of Harvard as community representatives :
A. General decision making
1. Selection of the management corporation
2. Veto power over any management decision
3. Determination of rental policies
4. Arbitration for equitable lease arrangements
B. Administration of maintenance funds
C. Information liason
1. To more quickly discover neighborhood problems and relay them to
the management corporation.
2. To catylize relations between Harvard and the Community.
The economic feasibility can be described just as simply. Normally, out of
the rent roll, the landlord must pay for his debt service, his taxes, his
operating expenses, his management fee, a vacancy allowance, and finally
his profit. This proposal would divide what would be due the landlord for
the right to inhabit the property, i.e. the portions devoted to the debt
service, the taxes, the vacancy allowance, and a mutually agreed upon rate
of return, from what is used for management; i.e. operating expenses,
management fee and the portion of the debt service needed to finance repairs,
An approximation of project economics follows describing its feasibility:
64
_
\
h= e e==
E= r r r
i ; r
-J
a
PROJECT ECONOMICS:
(Note. All figures below are approximations or assumptions because the
specific informations that were requested from Harvard have been refused
us. When the accurate figures are acquired, the study will be adjusted.)
$276,000
REVENUE
Total revenue (230 units @ approx. $100/mo. X 12)=
Vacancy allowance (@ 4% Revenue)=
Net effective revenue3
MAINTENANCE FUND
Operating expenses (average 2 bedroom apt/ year)
11,000
$265,000
Heat-
250
Insurance-
90
Electricity
50
Water-
15
Repair @ 8%
95
Total
$500/unit/yr
Grand total
500
X 230=
Management fee (@ 10% Eff. Revenue) =
Total Maintenance fund
INCOME AVAILABLE TO LANDLORD
Income available to landlord (Eff. Rev.- Main)=
Real Estate taxes (Approx. 16.5% Eff. Revenue)=
Income available to debt service=
115,000
26,500
$141,500
$123,500
43,725
$ 79,775
Approx. acquisition costs ( Aver . $20,000/blg.X103)= $2,060,000
Approximate rate of return=
4 %
(Based on a conversation with Dr. Stephan Miller, Harvard Community
Relations, we assumed the properties were purchased from Harvard's
endowment fund. This made it possible for Harvard to purchase the
land without proving economic valuation to a lending institution.
It explains the low rate of return as Harvard must have paid over
market value to acquire the whole parcel. Since this was Harvard's
decision, this report will not try to justify a higher rate of return.)
Thus, in order to equitably split the duties of the contract, it
appears 47% of the rent will go to Harvard for the right of use and
53% will go to the tenants' association for management. This would
be the normal working arrangement.
65
—
\
n ^
REPARATIONS :
However, the normal working arrangement can only begin when all the
properties are considered habitable and in good working order. As
the evidence previously presented shows, this has not been the case.
There has been a steady deterioration of the properties during the
last few years. We will assume, again, since the management corporation
responsible for this is reputed to be efficient and trustworthy, that
this deterioration was caused not by mismanagement but because maintenance
funds were short circuited for a higher return for the endowment.
Therefore, it is justified that repairs over and above allowed for in
operating costs be made on the properties until they are in good work-
ing order and that payment for these repairs be made from monies
that would go into the endowment return.
A building condition survey is currently being undertaken to determine
an accurate cost estimate for the repair of the houses. For the pur-
poses of this report, an approximate unit cost will better describe
the general problems of the area.
COST ESTIMATE FOR REPAIRS:
1. Clean out & Wreck out (composed mainly of tearing out
broken plaster, walls, unsafe porches, windows, Etc.
See all photographs exhibited) (Assum. 33% @$120)= $ 40.
2. Cleanup (Assum. 75% @ 20/unit)= 15.
3. Carpentry (Several buildings have had rear porches
removed, need stair rebuilt, need new railings, Etc.
See figures 3,4,6,7,8,9. Assum. 20% @ $1200/unit) 225.
A. Roofing (several leaks have been reported throughout
the area suggesting unattendance in roof repair.
See Figures 14, 15, 16. Assum. 30% @ $400/unit)= 120.
5. Masonry (mainly repointing. Assum . 20% @ $50/unit)= 10.
6. Plumbing (many leaks in faucets and joints, no major
installations. See Figures 17, 18, 19. Assum. 33%
@ $60/unit)= 20.
7. Heating (some replacement of old systems) (assum.
5% @ $600/unit)= 30.
8. Electric (Minor repair, new wiring. Assum. 20% @
$50/unit)= 10.
9. Lath (minor repair) 5.
10. Plaster (cracked ceilings and walls from leaks,
general damage in five years of unconcern. Assum.
25% @ $100/unit)= 25.
11. Paint: Exterior (All wood buildings are in need of
a new paint job. Assum. 60% X $1500/blg/2.3 units)= 390.
66
12. Paint: Interior (most all apartments need some
attention. See. Figures 13,14,18. Assum 80% @
140/unit)=
13. Floors (linoleum replacement, sanding) (Assum.
20% @ 100/unit)=
14. Windows (Much glass has been broken and not
replaced in the last five years. See. Figures
20,21,22. Assum. 30% @ 50/unit)=
15.Landscaping-yards. (General cleanup of glass
torn fences, reseeding grass, play equipment.
See Figure 5. Assum. 60% @ 25/unit)=
16. Trucking and dump fees
17. Miscellaneous contracts
18. Final clean up (Assum 50% @ 20/unit)
19. Layout (subsidized by RTH)
20. Security (subsidized by RTH)
21. Running expenses
22. Supervision (5 men for 3 mo.)
Net total
23. 13% W.C. & Payroll tax
24. 7% profit to subcontractors
Total per unit cost
TOTAL PROJECT COST ($1380 x 230 units)=
$110.
20.
15.
15.
5.
5.
10.
0.
0.
5.
55.
$1150. /unit
150
80
$1380.
$317,400.
FINANCING:
Since deterioration has been going on for at least 5 years, we feel
that five years of reparations is justified. Thus we will mortgage
the cost of repairs for a total of five years.
Total project cost
Capitalization rate @ 9% interest for 5 years=
Debt service=
Income available from endowment return
$317,400
24.92%
$ 79,030
$ 79,775
Thus it appears that not only can a reasonable working contract be developed
for the neighborhood control of their own services but also a fair arrange-
ment for reparations can be justified.
67
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
1350 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS 02138
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER HOLYOKE CENTER
January 21, 1970
APPENDIX 2
CORRESPONDENCE WITH HENRY CUTLER
Mr. Robert S. Parks
Roxbury Tenants of Harvard Association
52 Francis Street
Roxbury, Massachusetts 0 2115
Dear Mr. Parks:
I have been instructed by the Corporation to respond on its behalf
to the several memoranda which you left with Dean Ebert on January 6,
1970, and which he transmitted to the University for review and action.
Any discussion of the present situation requires an understanding
of the plans underlying the acquisition of the various properties in the
area between Francis Street and the former Convent of the Good Shepherd
and subsequent changes that have affected those plans. As you doubtless
know, these properties were purchased for re-use for institutional
purposes—either by the Medical School or by the hospitals with which
it is affiliated. Changes in the building and site plans of the Affili-
ated Hospitals Center now make it seem likely that a substantial part
of this land area will not be required for hospital or Medical School
purposes in the foreseeable future.
I understand that Dean Ebert wrote on November 14, 1969, to inform
you that the lot bounded by Francis Street, Vining Street, Fenwood Road,
and St. Albans Road (Area I) would be required for hospital purposes not
later than January 1, 1973, and that the block bounded by Francis Street,
^"smS,^
68
i — cr r
*
I- rr ' i i
-1—1—1 =1 =1. =1 =? i ^l < ^ ' == ! ! ~ 1 —1 ~1
Mr. Robert S. Parks -2- January 21, 1970
Vining Street, Fenwood Road, and Brookline Avenue (Area 2) would be
required for expansion of the Massachusetts Mental Health Center (accord-
ing to information given to the School by the Commissioner of Mental
Health) by January 1, 1973. Dean Ebert agreed to use his influence with
the Commissioner of Mental Health to delay the utilization of this block
for construction for an additional year (i.e., until 197M-) .
We now expect that the remainder of this housing (Area 3) will be
available for occupancy as dwellings for at least five years; and, as
Dean Ebert stated in his letter, at least two years' notice will be
given of any impending re -use which would require that the buildings be
vacated. Because the properties in Area 3 are expected to be available
for housing for a substantially longer period than was originally antici-
pated, Harvard will plan to operate them as "rental housing." A detailed
survey of all the dwelling units in Areas 1, 2 and 3 has been initiated
and any hazards to health or safety which are found will be immediately
corrected, except in the unlikely event that the condition discovered
renders rehabilitation totally unfeasible and prohibits occupancy. In
addition, recommendations will be received as to further rehabilitation
of all of the Harvard-owned housing outside Areas 1 and 2. If recommended,
rear porches which have been removed in the interests of safety will be
replaced as part of the rehabilitation process because of the longer
period of expected occupancy of the buildings.
Rents in Areas 1 and 2 will remain at their present levels. In these
areas any further rehabilitation over and above that necessary to maintain
adequate health and safety conditions in the premises must be at the
expense of the tenants. Empty apartments in Areas 1 and 2 will be rented
69
[ - [
I " I
i =1 r3 3 T "3 T =^ -^ ! -J — I 73 r"3
Mr. Robert S. Parks -3- January 21, 1970
with the added understanding that no relocation assistance will be pro-
vided by Harvard to anyone who has moved into the buildings after
January 20, 1970.
Because Harvard will now be operating the properties in Area 3 as
rental properties, such rehabilitation as is necessary and desirable to
maintain each building in good repair will be carried out. Further
renovation to provide for comfort and convenience will be carried out
if the present tenant wishes. The cost of all rehabilitation carried
out except that necessary to assure health and safety will be reflected
in an increased rent schedule. Rents on apartments in Area 3 will be
based on all of the factors usually included in a rent structure — includ-
ing a return on the fair value of the building and the cost of rehabili-
tation. Although much less than the usual return on rental property,
Harvard will regard 6% of the fair value of these properties (after
including the cost of rehabilitation) together with amortization of that
latter cost over a reasonable period of time as a proper return under
all of these circumstances.
Families who are now living in the affected areas and who wish to
move from there into the presently unaffected area may do so as vacancies
occur. Families with children will receive first priority. Harvard
will pay their moving expenses. Harvard will also paint and paper their
new apartments at no cost to them. If there is a substantial difference
in rent between their old apartments and the new one into which they
move, the previous rent will apply for six months and one-half the dif-
ference between the old and new rents will apply for the next six months.
At the end of those periods the new rents will apply.
70
i
r r
1 — 1 —1 "I — I ~i — 1 1 ' 1 ' =1 — 1 =^ ^— J
Mr. Robert S. Parks -*♦•- January 21, 1970
Relocation payments and relocation services in accordance with the
recommendation of the Tenants Association in their memorandum of
January 7, 1970, will be made available for those displaced from affected
areas — except for those who wish to move only to the unaffected area,
in which case only actual moving expenses will be paid as noted below.
To provide rental information and an opportunity for those who wish
to rent these apartments and to provide for better tenant service,
Hunneman and Company, the Managing Agents for the University, will open
and staff a new office located at 797 Huntington Avenue, at the corner
of Huntington Avenue and Kempton Street . The telephone number will be
73l4--8I+32 . This office will begin to function on February 1, 1970, and
will serve both as a rental office and as a "maintenance office ." It
is the plan of Harvard's Management Agents to meet with the members of
the Tenants Association and any other individual tenants or groups of
tenant's who wish to meet With them in order to discuss problems of living
in these Harvard-owned buildings and how the Agent can better manage the
buildings . It should be pointed out at this time that Hunneman and Company
are paid to manage all of Harvard's rental properties as a group and
that management policies are University-wide. Rental applications will
continue to be approved by a representative of the University and a
representative of the Tenants Association. No applicant shall be dis-
approved on any basis inconsistent with law.
Finally, the University believes that Mr. John Sharratt has been of
assistance to the Tenants Association in suggesting to them courses of
71
r
-J— 1 — i — | —i — i — -1 — » — i ' — I ■ — i — i — i
Mr. Robert S. Parks -5- January 21, 1970
action which they and the University might take to improve the overall
situation. However, it does not seem proper for the University to pay
Mr. Sharratt for his services because of the relationship that this would
immediately establish between Mr. Sharratt and the University. In our
opinion, to properly serve the tenants' interests, Mr. Sharratt cannot
be an employee of the University or a consultant to or paid by the
University. You are aware that we have tried to help the Tenants Asso-
ciation to find funds to pay Mr. Sharratt.
The "Preliminary Management Proposal" which Mr. Sharrat has prepared
and which was submitted by the tenants is undergoing detailed study.
The University's reactions to this proposal will be made the subject
of a separate letter as soon as the review of the proposal has been
completed.
Sincerely yours,
J&fcr-
Henryfll Cutler
Manager/ for Real Estate
HHC/mkc
72
L C
l~ (
1 — I — 1 — J — 1 — I — I — 1 — I — 1 i — I . — I — 1 — I —
APPENDIX 3
CONVENT SITE AREA REQUIREMENTS
The purpose of this appendix is to establish planning guidelines for the
positioning of the various uses to be placed on the convent site and to
justify the area apportionments devoted to these uses. It is expected that
these uses shall consist of: A new power plant with all its service facili-
ties, approximately 200 units of family housing, approximately 200 units
of high rise housing, recreation areas as required, relocation parking
for existing spaces on the site, and land to be acquired by the city for
transportation use.
I. AREA APPORTIONMENT
A. TOTAL AREA OF SITE 451,946 sf .
B. FAMILY HOUSING
1. Due to the frequency that children run in and out
of their home, due to the need for visual and aud-
io supervision of mothers at home to children at
play, due to fear of elevators and corridors by
mothers and children, due to logistical ineffici-
ency of large apartments high rise, and due to
the wishes of the community concerned, FAMILY
HOUSING is to be considered less than 4 stories
high.
2. Number of units: 2BD. 3BD. 4BD.
40 90 70
Total : 200 units
3. FHA min. apt. sf ; 840 sf .990 sf.1167 sf .
4. Total floor area:
a. 2 bedrooms 40 unts.X 840 sf./unit = 33,600 sf.
b. 3 bedrooms 90 unitsX 990 sf./unit = 89,100 sf.
c. 4 bedrooms 70 unitsX1167 sf./unit = 81,690 sf.
d. total 204,390 sf.
5. Approx. number of buildings:
@ 3 units building (two flats & one duplex,
25'x40'x4 stor.)= 200 units/ 3/building=
Total 67 buildings
6. Approx. area devoted to buildings:
25'x40'x67 buildings= 67,000 sf.
7. Approx. FHA Yard Requirements:
a. Total area per building=(2s+10+L/15)25+
(s+5+L/15)25= (8+10+2+4+5+1)25 =
total 750 sf ./big.
b. Total area devoted to yards= 67 x 750 = 50,250 sf.
8. Parking and access requirements:
a. Access
1. 2 park Ins., 2 traffic l.,2 sidewalks = 54' wide
2. area/ building= 54 72 x 25' = . 675 sf.
3. Total access require. = 675 sf. x 67 = 45,225 sf.
b . Parking
1. Total spaces @ l/unit= 200 spaces
2. Total spaces on streets= 67 x 25/20= 84 spaces
73
I I
r r
-! -l -1 -I "I -1=1 1 1 1 =3
3. Total spaces off streets=200-84= 116 spaces
4. Total area devoted to off street parking=
300 sf. /space x 116 spaces = 34,800 sf.
9. Contingency @ 10% because of awkward shaped site.
a. Suhtotal 197,225 sf.
b . Contingency @ 10% 19,722 sf.
10. Total area devoted to family housing 216,947 sf
C. HIGH RISE HOUSING
1. Number of units: 1BD. 2BD
130 70
Total 200 units
2. FHA min. apt.sf: 660 840 sf.
3. Total floor area:
a. one bedrooms. . .130 units x 660sf./ut.= 85,800 sf.
b. two bedrooms... 70 units x 840sf./ut.= 58,800 sf.
c. Total 144,600 sf.
4. Approx. floor dimension: 60' x 60'= 3600 sf.
5. Approx. number of stories: 144,600/3600 = 40 stories.
6. Approx. no. of towers: 4 @ (12,12,8,8), or 3 @ (20,12,8),
or 2 @ (20,20). Using average of three.
7. Approx. area devoted to towers:
a. Yards requirements = 2s+10+L/15
1) 20 story = 40 + 10+4=54'
2) 12 story = 24+10+4 = 38'
3) 8 story = 16+10+4 = 30'
b . Areas
1) 20 story = 54'+60'+54" = 168'/side X 168'= 28,224 sf.
2) 12 story = 38'+60'+38' = 136'/side X 136'= 18,496 sf.
3) 8 story = 30'+60'+30' = 120'/side X 120'= 14,400 sf.
4) Total 61,120 sf.
8. Parking and access. (We will assume that the park-
ing requirement for the high rise will be put under-
ground or included with the spaces provided on the
power plant. We will also assume that access is
from existing street frontage.)
9. Contingency @ 10% 6,112 sf.
10. Total area devoted to high rise housing =67,232 sf.
RECREATION
1. Assumed FHA Land Intensity Rating= 5.8
2. Required Recreation Space Ratio = .1
3. Total Gross Floor Area = 144,600+204,390= 348,990 sf.
4. Required Recreation Space = .1 x 348,990 sf. = 34,899 sf,
TRANSPORTATION (Area m^ be taken by city for widening
of Huntington Avenue or for the building of a new MBTA.)
1. Length of site along Huntington = 750'
2. Depth of area needed = 20'
3. Area to be taken = 750' x 20' = 15,000 sf,
74
*
POWER PLANT (Due to the fact that Harvard has refused the
community the information as to the actual needs of the Power
Plant, we cannot provide an itemized account. However, they
have stated the gross need will be aound three acres, while the
net need of the plant alone will he much" less. On this in-
formation, we have assumed a parking garage can be erected
with the power plant to relocate the spaces existing on the
Convent Site.)
1. Parking Requirement
a. 300 cars @ 300 sf. /space = 90,000 sf.
b. Garage size = 130'x300' = 39,000 sf. /floor
c. Number of floors = 3 (
above in order to keep the seal'-' -if the neighborhood.)
2. Area devoted to Power Plant and garage
a. Total site area 451,946 sf.
b. Net total of Housing, Recreation,
& Transportation needs 334,028 sf.
c. Area devoted for power plant 117,918 sf,
II. LOCATION GUIDELINES
A. FAMILY HOUSING IS TO RELATE TO HUNTINGTON AVENUE AND BRIGHAM CIRCLE.
1. In order to relate more to the Mission Hill Community on the hill.
2. In order to be located more closely to public transportation.
3. In order to relate more closely to community services.
B. HIGH RISE HOUSING IS TO RELATE TO THE JAMAICAWAY RIVERWAY .
1. In order to take advantage of what would have been a high rent
address .
2. In order to take advantage of good automobile access.
3. In order to relate to the Medical Complex.
C. THE POWER PLANT AND THE PARKING GARAGE IS TO RELATE TO THE
NORTHERN CORNER OF THE SITE.
1. In order to least expensively tie in to the power trunk lines.
2. In order to be as least conspicuous as possible to the housing.
3. In order to relate to the traffic distribution system of the
Medical Complex.
4. In order to relate to the Jamaicaway and Brookline Avenue for
truck servicing.
D. THE MAJOR RECREATIONAL AREA IS TO BE PLACED BETWEEN THE HIGH RISE
HOUSING, THE FAMILY HOUSING, AND THE POWER PLANT.
1. In order to provide service for the high rise as well as the low.
2. In order to be combined with the Power Plant site so that both
can be made more efficient. The Park can be large enough for
a ball field, while the power plant can be large enough for
noise and pollution control and underground storage.
3. In order to separate the power plant visually and audially
from the family housing.
75
i r
I ~ !
I ii
n
4. In order to separate the park from major traffic arteries.
5. In order to integrate community wide pedestrian movements,
76
f r
i [
lr I1
in
I [=: i c
i: r I it-"
!
APPENDIX 4
REPORT CONCERNING SCHOOL FACILITIES
PURPOSE
This report examines the school needs of the community surrounding RTH in the
light of existing capacities, pupil enrollment*, racial balance, and location
requirements, and recommends the construction of a new elementary school to
meet these needs.
EXISTING SITUATION
One of the most important support facilities to be considered is the school serv-
ing the residential community. The community is presently served by four ele-
mentary schools — three public and one parochial. These are the Allen on Parker
Street near Ruggles Street; the Farragut on Huntington Avenue at Fenwood Street;
the Tobin on Smith Street; and Our Lady of Perpetual Help on Smith Street and
St. Alphonsus. All three puplic schools make up the entire Martin District, with
the Tobin serving as the main school. The September 1967 enrollment was as fol-
lows :
CAPACITY BLACK WHITE TOTAL % NON-WHITE
Tobin
Allen
Farragut
( taken from the Mission Hill - Parker Hill Summer Study Group Report, 1968)
We are most concerned with the Farragut school, as the neighborhood we are deal-
ing with is served by this school. However whatever happens to other schools in
the district, will affect the future and status of this school, and will in turn
affect the larger community, so we must take a larger view.
The 1962 Sargent Report on BOSTON SCHOOLS recommended that the then 51-year-old
Allen school be abandoned by 1965.
In 1966, Harvard thought there was a need for a new elementary school in the neigh-
borhood, and under a Title III grant, attempted to plan a K-9 school with a fami-
ly health program. This was unacceptable to the School Committee and Harvard re -
quested the assistance of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, ag reeing to
broaden their scope and plan a school that would serve the entire neighborhood,
not only hospital and medical personnel occupying the then proposed new housing.
The 1968 report, SCHOOLS, HEALTH CARE, AND THE COMMUNITY: PROPOSALS FOR COLLABOR-
ATION IN MISSION HILL -PARKER HILL AND IN GREATER BOSTON, conducted in the summer
of 1967 by the Harvard Graduate School of Education Mission Hill_- Parker Hill
Summer Study Group, recommended that a new elementary school be built. They
recommended that the the Allen School (built 1901) and the Farragut School
(built 1904) be abandoned. The Farragut School was described as antiquated.
The Allen building has only eight classrooms and is not very worthwhile maintain-
ing in view of its condition.
K-8
760
535
244
779
69%
K-2
200
158
- 8
166
94
K-6
340
174
152
326
53
* The anticipated enrollments are based on 1967 figures as the only ones avail-
able to us. Projections were not made; we are concerned with the number of seats
required when the housing is completed.
77
L I E~ i
I
? ^ -^ ■ _, _. r S3
POTENTIAL NEED
Thus we can assume that the Allen building will definitely go in the not too
distant future, leaving 166 pupils that must be reaccommodated. If the Farragut
is abandoned, an additional 326 students will require seats. Thus abandonment of
these schools alone will require approximately 500 seats. ( This may have to be
adjusted as the Farragut has a sixth grade and any new elementary school would be
K-5. However, the number of students may be balanced by the inclusion of a younger
kindergarten grade.) The Tobin is. already overcrowded and some of its pupils
should be removed. There is now an excess of about 20 seats that will require
accommodation. This indicates the necessity for at least some kind of new school
facility.
In addition at least three other potential needs must be considered:
(1) New families to occupy Family HOusing planned for the Ledge Site and the
Convent Site Addition -
In addition to 200 units of Family Housing planned for the Convent Site to re-
house members of the RTH area, 250 units of new Family Housing are planned for
the Convent Site addition ( the Kempton-St. Albans section) and 400 units of new
Family Housing are planned for the Ledge Site. This indicates an addition of
650 families to the residential community. Assuming an average of 2 children per
family, and assuming at least half would be of elementary school age, there would
be a need for 650 additional elementary school seats.
Here alone we see a need for a new elementary school with a capacity of at least
1000 seats, more likely 120CU
(2) The possibility of the Tobin school being converted to a Middle School-
At present the only school serving grades 6-8 in the District is the Tobin, which
as indicated previously, is already overflowing. There exists the possibility then
that the Tobin will be converted to a Middle School. The Tobin school enrollment,
according to 1967 figures) breaks down to 260 in grades 6-8, and 520 in the elemen-
tary grades. The p esence of 650 new families would mean that there would be an
increase in the middle school population, somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-
400 seats out of the rem ining 650 non-elementary school children. If the Tobin
were converted into a Middle School, it would accomm date the additional 400 com-
fortably. It could also absorb the sixthe grade from the Farragut (approximately
50 children). However at least 500 elementary school students would have to be
rehoused.
(3) The capacity of the Mission Church Parish School -
The current status and plans of the Parish elementary school is unknown as of this
time. However in the event that the Parish School is unable to maintain its cap-
acity, there must be available additional public school seats to absorb any
transfer students.
78
I
158
8
174
152
14
6
195
455*
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend therefore that the the Farragut and Allen schools be demolished and
replaced by one centrally located school with a minimum capacity of 1000 seats.
It is preferable that this be built on a site and in such a way that provides pos-
sibilities for expansion. For example, if design accommodated five houses of
200 students each, another self-contained HOuse or Houses can always be added to
accommodate multiples of about 200 students. Thus the school can be enlarged as
needs increase.
The need is also indicated for an expanded middle school facility, and it is
recommended that the construction of a new Middle School or the conversion of the
Tobin be investigated.
RACIAL BALANCE
Potential Source Black White
Allen
Farragut
Tobin
Family Housing
541 621
* assumes at least 70% of new housing will be occupied by white families, including
Harvard personnel
As figured above we do not anticipate a problem with racial imbalance. We are as-
suming that the population composition will remain pretty much the same, or reverse
the trend of whites moving out of the neighborhood, which hasn't been very pro-
nounced in any case. This is supported by a lookat recent trends in the compo-
sition of the Farragut school, representing our major resource area. In both the
Tobin and The Allen, the White enrollment has remained the same or decreased mini-
mally between 1966 and 1967. However that of the Farragut increased by 20 from
1966 to 1967.
The plan to balance the new Jefferson-Bullfinch (Heath Street School) , scheduled
to open in 1971, could change the situation. This school will house 1000 K-5
and be located on Heath Street near Day Street. The present Jefferson District
lines may be changed and take Whites from the present Martin District above Par-
ker Hill . However the new district lines are not set at this time and will
actually depend upon the situation when the school opens in 1971. ( The Mission
Hill-Parker Hill Summer Study Group proposal for redistricting should be consider-
ed, see pp. 14, 15)
SITE
The site of the new school must be centrally located for the service population
previously discussed.- the Martin District excluding all from the Tobin but the
overflow, plus transfer students from the parochial school, and children of fami-
lies new to the area. There must be no major and/or dangerous crossings in the
path of access to the new school. The school must be located on land that is
vacant or requires minimal displacement. And any families displaced must be assured
of relocation in the immediate vicinity.
79
n rt n — - rr
r r
The two most likely possibilities are:
(1) the Quarry or Ledge site recommended by the Mission Hill-Parker Hill Summer
Study Project-
This is a split-level site bounded by Tremont Street, Calumet, and St. Alphon-
sus Streets. The site would include lots on the south side of Allegheny Street.
The upper level is nearly four stories above the lower level on Tremont Street.
This site would provide suitable building and play area for the school.
(2) The alternative would be to locate the school adjacent to the present Farragut
site. We are recommending that the housing along Kempton and St. Albans Streets
up to the edge of the Convent Site be eventually redeveloped for housing.
Part or all of this site could be used for the new school.
In the case of either site, it will be necessary to bridge Huntington Avenue,
which is now an extremely dangerous crossing for adults and children alike. This
is most apparent at Brigham Circle which would more directly affect access to the
Ledge Site. In either case, children will be coming to the new school from both
sides of Huntington Avenue. (See Report on Traffic Changes)
The ledge site is vacant and would not involve relocation problems. The location
is ideal in its relation to Brigham Circle. It can strengthen and become an inte-
gral part of this redeveloped and revitalized commercial and institutional center.
Health and care services which are part of the school can be directly related to
hospital services adjacent to Brigham Circle. The site is large and would provide
adequate space for recreation.
The Convent Site Addition would require relocation staging. Since there is pres-
ently housing on this site, the site could not be cleared and built upon until"
Stage I of the new housing is complete. Use of this site ties residential develop-
ment to Brigham Circle, which is important in maintaining residential continuity.
If the school is located on this site, it could be tied to the new housing and
benifit from adjacent residential recreation space. This site is also close enough
to Brigham Circle so that it could be considered part of and work as part of the
revitalized commercial and institutional center.
If a Middle School is constructed, the ledge site may be more attractive for such
a use in light of its centrality and proximity to a commercial center and a transit
stop. In this case it would be adviseable to use the Convent Site Addition for the
elementary school and reserve the Ledge Site for the Middle school which could
advantageously be combined with Hi-Rise residential units. The advantage of locat-
ing the elementary and middle schools proximate to each other must also be considered.
80
r^
j r
SUMMARY OF THE REASONS WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE RTH AREA:
1. Need for increased pupil capacity.
2. A school can provide a central resource for the transmission of services
needed by the community.
3. Families will move out of the neighborhood not only because of bad housing
but because of bad schooling. Families planning to leave the area will think
twice about remaining because of the presence and promise of a good and
hopefully innovative school.
4. New families will be attracted into the neighborhood.
COMMUNITY SCHOOL CONCEPT
In order to maintain community cohesiveness any school must be a community school.
This means :
Participation of the community in its planning and operation.
Reflecting the needs, interests, and concerns of the service population.
Acting as a community center; housing or channeling out to the community a
number of supplementary activities such as recreation, adult education,
job training, health services, etc..
Ideally the planning of the school program should be done jointly by community
interests concerned. This would involve Harvard and Hospital people, community
residents, and School Department people. As is suggested in the Summer Study report,
the many neighboring institutions of higher learning could provide valuable
assistance.
We will not comment in detail here about what the new school program should
or should not contain. However, ideas about its possible expansion into a
community resource are interjected. Should the library be expanded into a neigh-
borhood resource? Or is the library on Tremont Street adequate? Is there a
community center nearby? a gym? auditorium? How serviceable is the Tobin Memorial
Building?
There exists the possibility of incorporating a major comprehensive family health
service as part of the school, since this is both of major importance to
neighborhood residents and an asset that can be offered the community by the
Harvard-Hospital Complex. The neighborhood is a rich area in terms of the presence
of institutional resources, and it should reap benifit from their presence.
We enlist the cooperation of all concerned.
81
APPENDIX 5
REPORT CONCERNING HEALTH FACILITIES
NEED
The need for a health facility to serve the immediate RTH community and Mission-
Hill-Parker Hill is documented by the following:
The adjacent hospitals deal mainly with specialized ailments; or each sep-
arate ailment is dealt with by a specialist so that a person may haveto make
repeated visits to separate places to have first his eyes taken care of, then his
cough treated, then his back taken care of.
Many residents go to City Hospital rather than nearby institutions because
they are intimidated, treated unpleasantly, made to wait mnjustif yably ,
or not provided treatment at all.
Most have no clinic or doctor where they can receive care by someone who
knows their medical history and will follow up.
The nearby clinics have hours that are inconvenient to working people.
In all available clinics the patient must often wait many hours to be
treated.
Community residents are not familiar with what the hospitals have to offer;
hospital policy in the past has been to shut itself off from and have little to
do with the community — the hospitals have always envisioned themselves as
servants to the Region.
Most residents cannot afford the services of a private general practicioner
and specialists.
Finally there is a need in this community as in many others for health services
which are often neglected or not given enough attention:
1- Preventive Medicine
2- Health Education
3- Continuity of Care
A- Family Care
5- Mental Health Programs
6- Special Services for tahe Elderly
PRESENT PLANS
The Affiliated Hospitals' Expansion plans are to eventually construct an Out-
patient Tower right off Brigham Circle. Until that time all outpatient services
will be placed in the underground building of the first stsge of new hospital
construction. These services will include: Allergy, Dermatology, Neurology, Psy_-
chaiatry, Dentistry, a Clinic, and Doctors' Private Offices. Those services
easily combined in to a general medical clinic will be left here even after the
Outpatient Tower is complete. Specialized services will be relocated. In
addition, most of the Tower will house physicians' private offices ( p. 45,
Affiliated Hospitals Master Plan). Thus the projected outpatient service will
be no more than a combination of physicians' offices ( mosily high-priced
specialists) and specialized services.
HEALTH SEVICE CONSIDERATIONS AND OPTIONS
Will the above facility serve community health needs? We must deal with the
question of whether or not to plan a community health center in addition to the
proposed outpatient service:
{1) We can assume community needs will be fully met by the Affiliated Hospitals
outpatient resource.
82
(2) We can assume that community needs could potentially be met by the Outpatient
Resource, and concentrate our attention on recommending or demanding that
various services be included in this resource
(3) We can assume that needs will not be met and that a community health service
will be needed in addition, that a community health service fills different
needs than an outpatient clinic, and must be planned as such
Differences between Outpatient Service and Community Health Center
Outpatient Service
Serves population of a broad area — entire city or region, also patients who
have been in-hospital, discharged, and come back for follow-up
Is usually of a fairly specialized, fairly particularized nature
Is funded and controlled by the hospital it is a part of
Community Health Service
Serves the immediately adjacent community, is attuned to their problems
Provides generalized orientation, is directed to total care
Should be community controlled
EXISTING RESOURCE
The only presently existing program which may have the potential of meeting some
of these commnnity needs is the Harvard Community Health Plan. At present they
have only a large facility in "Kenmore Square, and plan to establish an Outreach
Center in the MissionHill community. This will be staff &d by one physician, one
nurse, one social worker, and one community organizer, and include a child care
facility. It is planned to enroll 600 Medicaid subscribers immediately; however,
a means will have to be found to broaden their reach by providing a subsidy for
those people who cannot afford the prepaid rates (about $550 per year) or are not
covered under an enrolled Blue Cross plan at work. It is hoped that this
plan will grow and become more than an outreach center, but perhaps a Kenmore
Square Facility in miniature, which, except for very specialized equipment, can
provide most of the same services right therein the community, but more important,
provide the services the community feels are most needed.
CONCLUSION
Thus in order to adequately meet community health needs, it is necessary to plan
a Community Health Service — a separate facility which contains a program that
is responsive - to the needs of the community. Thus we recommend separate __
health services for the RTH and the Harvard Redevelopment, one to serve the immed-
iate community, one to serve a larger population. However, it would be advantageous
if they could both work informally in conjunction with each other. A Community
Health Service could also absorb or combine with the recently established Harverd
Community Health Plan and provide a more accessible treatment facility than the
present one in Kenmore Square.
83
(r E |S
r
i i
APPENDIX 6
REPORT CONCERNING A TRAFFIC PLAN
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to indicate how the objective of RTH concerning
traffic in the community is to be achieved. That objective is to minimize the role
of the automobile in the residential community; in effect to create a pedestrian
community.
RTH believes that excessive vehicular traffic is not in the interest of the
community because it
is a health hazard in terms of both air and noise pollution
is a safety hazard for children playing, adults crossing the street, and mootor-
ists alike
divides the community by setting up barriors to social interaction
relegates the pedestrian to a second-place position to the motorist
PREMISES
There should be a minimum of through traffic in the residential community and
the hospital area.
There should be a minimum of hospital traffic in the residential community
There should be adequate parking space for the residential areas, medical center,
and commercial activity.
There should be efficient access (Unhindered ingress and egress) to parking with
a minimum of confusion and congestion.
There should be emergency access to the hospitals that doesn't interfere with the
residential neighborhood, and at the same time is not interfered with by non-hos-
pital traffic.
Rapid transit must be easily and safely accessible and should not inhibit the
movement of through traffic.
Pedestrian circulation should be clearly defined and separated from the hazards
of automobile traffic.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS
1. BRIGHAM CIRCLE, formed by the intersection of Huntington Avenue, Francis Street,
Tremont Street, and Calumet Street, was deemed a specific problem area in the
RENEWEL PROGRAM TRAFFIC STUDY (1965) by Wilbur Smith Associates. A major shop-
ping center for the community, it is a very incoherent intersection in terms
of the lack of traffic control and behavior.
There are too many types of traffic competing for right of way: Auto, bus,
trolley, truck, & Pedestrian. A lack of sufficient controls makes the inter-
section confusing to both pedestrians and motorists alike. It is almost im-
possible for the pedestrian to cross and extremely dangerous. Congestion is
a result of many factors- Ambulances turning on to Francis Street and stopping
84
r '
r ' F
traffic; buses stopping in the middle of the street, holding up a long line
of traffic; trucks double parking to make deliveries. The Arborway MBTA line
runs both ways in the middle of Huntington Avenue. The stops for both direct-
ions are on the Northern end of Huntington in the middle of the street. Ped-
estrians must cross through traffic to get to the trolley, miss the street
car if the light is not with them or dash across moving traffic, and finally
must wait for the car on a narrow strip of pavement with traffic whizzing
by beside them.
Brigham Circle is in a unique position in that it must funnel and handle
emergency traffic to the hospitals. It is a complex turning situation in which
traffic is even further held up because of the need to defer to ambulances ;
this brings almost all traffic to a halt. On the other hand, the ambulances
have difficulty negotiating the heavy traffic and the double parking.
2. HUNTINGTON AVENUE is at present a heavily traveled major arterial. The auto-
mobile traffic on Huntington Avenue is a combination of through and local.
In addition to handling automobiles, the artery is a principle bus and truck
route. It is a major through-connector from downtown to the Worchestor Turn-
pike, route 9, the Jamaicaway and Route 1. It carries approximately 25,000
cars per day. It was anticipated in the Wilbur Smith Study that the South-
west Expressway would divert the bulk of NE-SW.
3. BROOKLINE AVENUE is the second heavily traveled through street in the area,
it serves as a through connector to Storrow Drive and Route 9, carrying
24,500 cars per day between the Fenway and Francis Street.
A. TREMONT STREET is a major truck route linking to Huntington Avenue, and is
also an important link to Dudley Street. Current Traffic Department plans
are that Heath Street will be widened, ans with Washington Park Boulevard
will become a major four lane arterial to supplant Tremont-Huntington as a
major truck route. It will thus handle the bulk of through traffic. It will
carry a projected volume of 20,000, increasing eventually to about 30,000.
Thus Tremont-Francis Street will not carry as much traffic as at present,
and volume is expected to be halved: from 12,000 to 6,000.
NEEDS
The needs are to enable circulation routes to better serve the residential community,
the medical community, and commercial facilities; to eliminate congestion, traffic
delays, safety hazards, and decrease pollution.
The residential community can best be served by eliminating through traffic from
the community, allowing a minimum of local traffic, maintaining local traffic
around the perimeter and not within the residential area itself, providing adequate
parking, and reserving the streets in the residential area mainly for vehicles
going to and from residents homes. Hospital traffic must be kept off the hill
and off Huntington Avenue.
The Hospital Medical School Complex needs access for visitors and patients, park-
ing for visitors as well as parking for its large staff. It is necessary that this
85
parking be provided so that traffic does not encroach on residential streets.
Most important is the need for the hospitals to have direct, quick, and unobstruct-
ed emergency access.
The commercial facilities will be operating mainly at a neighborhood scale,
serving mostly the immediate neighborhood, and will be therefore reached to a
large extent by pedestrians. This requires non-hazardous pedestrian access. In
addition, for those who come by car, there must be adequate parking. There must
also be provision for delivery trucks to park and unload without obstructing
the rest of traffic.
There must be safe and direct access to public transportation for both residents
and hospital staff and visitors. This means that people need not be required
to cross two lanes of traffic to get to a trolley stop.
PROPOSAL
We propose that these needs be met through the changes shown in the preceeding
Land-reuse map. Briefly, those changes are:
1. Build an underpass to depress mass transit and through Huntington Avenue
traffic at Brigham Circle, thus creating a plaza devoted to pedestrians and
local traffic.
2. Shift mass transit underground anticipating the MBTA's eventual plans to
run an underground line to Brookline. Access to the mass transit will be
by "stairway from the Plaza at Brigham Circle.
3. Provide a right turn lane at grade from Huntington Avenue into Francis
Street for hospital access.
A. Maintain Tremont Street and Calumet Street at grade at Brigham Circle
assuming it will be mostly local traffic.
5. Reinforce Brookline Avenue as a major feeder artery. Channel Hospital
bound traffic along Heath Street to Brookline as an alternative to
Tremont and Huntington.
6. Provide cul-de-sacs off Huntington Avenue into the new residential area
to limit non-residential traffic.
7. Provide a one-way loop street along Francis Street and Behing Mass. Mental
Health to provide for the influx of Hospital traffic.
8. Provide parking garages to accomodate the large amount of traffic generated
by the hospitals and to keep them off surface streets. Provide garages for
high rise housing.
9. Maintain the proposed change of two MBTA stops along Hufi£ington Avenue
(between Brigham Circle and South Huntington) for daylight and especially
rush hour service, however the community has maintained that for the sake
of security, the four stops should be kept for nighttime service.
86
__
in
:
o
>
CO
cc ^^^^_
10
CC —
CD
u =
v~
ILI
CO
CO
^=
o
p
o>
(0 ^^^™
O)
GO **^^^~
o>
-
o>
to
50
I
J"H-
S
50
n
5 3
m
O
>
1 01
a
50
X
R
3 H-
•
fl)
i)
3 n-
CO
01
H
—
c
o
rt ►<
rt
3"
H-
50
H-
O
0
H
o
0
0
3
CD
%
3
M
CO
3
V
■) CO
3"
fl)
a
3
0)
H-
3
50
3 n-
3
T3
rt
►<
_
3 0
a
CO
a
:
0
c
3 rt
ai
Hi
0
fl
-'■3'
Hi
Hi
50
CO
i-fl)
Hi
8
g1
S
(-"•
a>
EC
50
"
3
M
H
01
CO
1— '
fD
H-
<
H
M
H-
tu
Oi
<
M
.
id
rt
H
fli
^3
»
3"
fl)
a
H
•
7
1
a
a.
50
G
-:
•
31*
i
'3D
t . [
t=
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11